TO  ENCOURAGE  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  AGRI- 
CULTURAL RESOURCES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON 
IRRIGATION  OF  ARID  LANDS 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-SEVENTH  CONGRESS 

FIRST   SESSION 

ON 

HL  R.  2913 

By  Mr.  SMITH,  of  Idaho 

A  BILL  TO  ENCOURAGE   THE   DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  AGRI- 
CULTURAL  RESOURCES   OF    THE   UNITED   STATES  THROUGH 
FEDERAL   AND    STATE    COOPERATION,    GIVING   PREFERENCE 
IN  THE  MATTER  OF  EMPLOYMENT  AND  THE  ESTABLISHMENT 
OF  RURAL  HOMES  TO  THOSE  WHO  HAVE  SERVED  WITH  THE 
MILITARY  AND  NAVAL  FORCES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
\ 


MAY  20,  23,  25,  26,  AXD  JUNE  2,  1921 


California 
Regional 
acility 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMKN'JL-   1'HIXTIXG   OFFICH 

1921 


r 


COMMITTEE  OX  IRRIGATION  OF  ARID  LANDS. 
SIXTY-SEVENTH  CONGRESS, 

FIRST  SESSION. 

M.  P.  KINKAID,  Nebraska,  CJiairman. 

NICHOLAS  J.  SIXXOTT,  Oregon.  CARL  HAYDEN,  Arizona. 

EDWARD  C.  LITTLE,  Kansas.  C.  B.  HUDSPETH'  Texas. 

ADDISOX  T.  SMITH,  Idaho.  JOHX  E.  RAKER,  California. 

JOHX  W.  SUMMERS,  Washington.  HOMER  L-  LYON,  North  Carolina. 

HEXRY  E.  BARBOUR,  California.  WILLIAM  B.  BANKHEAD,  Alabama. 

E.  O.  LEATHERWOOD,  Utah. 
WILLIAM  WILLIAMSOX,  South  Dakota. 
SAMUEL  S.  AREXTZ,  Xevada. 
MAXUEL  HERRICK,  Oklahoma. 

A.  R.  HUMPHREY.  Ckrk. 
2 


TO  ENCOURAGE  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  AGRICULTURAL 
RESOURCES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


COMMITTEE  ox  IRRIGATION  OF  ARID  LANDS. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Friday,  May  20,  1921. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  M.  P.  Kinkaid 
(chairman)  presiding. 

There  were  present  before  the  committee:  Hon.  Thomas  E. 
Campbell,  governor  of  Arizona;  Hon.  Louis  F.  Hart,  governor  of 
Washington;  Hon.  Emmet  D.  Boyle,  governor  of  Nevada;  Hon.  Charles 
R.  Mabey,  governor  of  L'tah;  Hon.  D.  W.  Davis,  governor  of  Idaho; 
Mr.  Del  ph.  E.  Carpenter,  representing  Gov.  Shoup,  of  Colorado; 
Mr.  Davis,  representing  Gov.  Mechem.  of  Ne\v  Mexico;  Mr.  Dobson, 
secretary  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Portland,  Oreg.;  Mr.  Frank 
W.  Brown,  of  Idaho,  secretary  Western  States  Reclamation  Associa- 
tion: Mr.  Victor  E.  Keyes,  attorney  general  of  Colorado;  Mr.  Brimmer, 
representing  Gov.  Carey,  of  Wyoming;  William  R.  King;  E.  F.  Blaine; 
Mr.  Sims  Ely,  secretary  Arizona  resource  board. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  "committee  will  come  to  order.  Gentlemen  of 
the  committee,  you  have  been  informed  that  we  have  met  this 
morning  to  hear  the  governors  of  the  Western  States  in  behalf  of 
reclamation,  and  we  will  first  hear  Gov.  Davis,  of  Idaho. 

The  committee  desires  to  hear  you,  Governor,  in  behalf  of  reclama- 
tion, what  your  proposition  is.  1  will  say  that  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  at  any  rate  is  not  advised  specifically  whether  you  want 
to  address  yourselves  to  the  Smith  bill  here  or  speak  in  general  of 
the  subject  of  irrigation.  But  I  suppose  you  want  to  direct  your- 
selves to  that  bill  more  or  less,  No.  2913.  "At  any  rate  we  wilfhear 
you  now  on  whatever  line  you  wish  to  talk. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  D.  W.  DAVIS,  GOVERNOR  OF 
IDAHO. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  committee,  it  was 
not  my  thought  to  discuss  the  irrigation  bill  in  detail,  its  features, 
more  than  to  say — first,  I  would  like  to  have  the  record  show  the 
governors  that  are  present  from  the  Western  States.  They  are  not 
all  in  the  room,  but  they  intend  to  be  here. 

We  have  with  us  Gov'.  Campbell,  of  Arizona;  Gov.  Hart,  of  Wash- 
ington; Gov.  Boyle,  of  Nevada;  Gov.  Mabey,  of  L'tah:  and  myself; 
and  then  we  have  representatives  of  governors  of  the  other  States; 
Judge  Carpenter,  representing  Gov.  Shoup,  of  Colorado:  and  Mr. 
Davis,  State  senator,  representing  Gov.  Mechem,  of  Now  Mexico: 
Mr.  Brimmer,  representing  Gov.  Carey,  of  Wyoming. 

It  is  our  desire.  Mr.  Chairman,  to  come  here  and  give  the  committee 
what  information  they  might  want  from  the  Western  States,  to  show 
the  committee  that  we  of  the  Western  States  are  united  in  asking 


4  DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

that  Congress  give  us  some  general  policy  in  the  matter  of  reclama- 
tion—adopt a  policy  by  the  Government  that  might  go  on  for  con- 
siderable time  and  not  make  it  necessary  for  us  to  come  to  Washing- 
ton in  the  interest  of  individual  projects,  as  has  been  the  custom  in 
the  past.  We  believe  that  it  would  be  far  better  if  we  would  adopt 
a  stated,  definite  policy  whereby  appropriations  could  be  made, 
to  be  paid  in  installments  and  made  continuing.  We  are  not  ask- 
ing the  Government  to  give  this  money:  we  expect  to  pay  it  back, 
every  dollar  of  it,  plus  interest. 

While  there  is  an  era  of  depression  at  the  present  time  which  might 
be  made  as  an  argument  that  this  is  not  an  opportune  time,  we  take 
the  position  that  it  is  an  opportune  time  to  prepare  for  this  work 
and  to  be  in  shape  to  carry  it  on.  It  takes  years  to  bring  reclamation 
projects  into  bearing  in  full,  and  one  reaction  usually  follows  another 
and  we  feel  that  by  the  time  this  work  could  be  set  in  motion  there 
will  be  a  tremendous  Demand  for  the  products  of  the  farm.  The 
records  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture  would  sustain  that  point. 
It  shows  that  we  must  keep  pace  and  bring  it  new  land  for  develop- 
ment if  we  are  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  Nation.  We  have  a  number 
of  men  here  this  morning,  and  it  is  possible  that  the  committee  would 
like  to  ask  questions  concerning  these  matters,  and  no  doubt  some 
member  of  our  delegation  would  be  pleased  to  answer  these  questions. 

I  do  not  desire  to  take  up  a  great  deal  of  your  time  here  by  a  lengthy 
discussion  of  this  subject,  because  I  understand  that  your  time  is 
limited  to  hear  the  different  men. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  ask  just  a«question  there.  You  are  not 
here  in  behalf  of  any  particular  Dill  ? 

Gov.  DAVIS.  I  want  to  say  this,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  governors 
met  in  Denver,  and  several  of  the  governors  that  are  represented  by 
representatives  here  in  this  delegation  were  there  in  person,  and  we 
unanimously  recommended  the  Smith-McXary  bill,  and  passed  reso- 
lutions to  that  effect,  a  copy  of  which  will  be  left  with  your  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  read  of  that,  and  that  was  why  I  mentioned 
the  Smith  bill. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  We  have  a  copy  of  that  resolution  and  it  will  be  left 
with  your  committee. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Governor,  before  you  take  your  seat,  does  that  bill 
rather  meet  the  general  viewpoint  of  the  western  governors  as  to 
the  future  policy  of  the  Reclamation  Service  ( 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir;  that  was  discussed  at  some  length  at  Denver, 
and  it  was  decided  that  some  such  plan  as  is  set  forth  in  the  Smith- 
McXary  bill  was  the  plan  which  should  be  developed. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Governor,  have  you  decided  upon  the  manner  of  the 
presentation  of  what  you  wish  to  present  to  the  committee  \  If 
you  have  not,  I  make  this  inquiry  for  this  reason :  Most  of  the  mem- 
bers of  this  committee — I  think  all — are  very  familiar  with  the  merits 
of  irrigation,  and  you  might  save  considerable  time  by  avoiding  a  lot 
of  discussion  of  it  and  getting  into  the  meat  of  the  bill,  or  the  exact 
precise  legislation  desired,  and  any  criticisms  that  you  wish  to  make 
or  suggestions  or  amendments  to  any  pending  legislation  would  save 
your  time  and  our  time,  too. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  That  was  my  thought  in  being  verv  brief  this  morning, 
Mr.  Sinnott.  I  do  not  care  to'  go  into  any  lengthy  discussion  of  the 
merits  of  irrigation.  We  have  members  of  our  association  who  have 


DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED  STATES.  5 

been  making  a  study  of  the  bill,  that  can  discuss  it  point  by  point, 
perhaps  better  than  I.  and  I  think  that  has  been  done.  Mr.  Blaine 
has  appeared  before  your  committee,  I  understand,  and  has  oriven 
you  in  detail  a  discussion  of  the  various  points  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  My  idea  in  asking  the  governor  was  in  line  with  the 
suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Oregon,  Mr.  Sinnott,  that  one  of 
these  gentlemen  who  has  given  this  bill  thought  and  consideration 
and  has  the  general  idea  as  to  the  policy,  if  they  will  take  that  bill 
up  and  define  it  and  analyze  it  clear  on  down  through,  stating  what  it 
means  and  what  they  intend  by  it,  I  think  it  would  not  only  benefit 
the  committee  but  it  would  give  us  an  opportunity  to  get  the  matter 
before  the  rest  of  the  Members  of  the  House,  and  that  was  what  I 
hoped  the  governor  and  his  associate  governors  and  representa- 
tives would  do  before  the  committee  this  morning. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Well,  now,  Mr.  Raker,  as  a  member  of  the  committee 
is  going  to  do  that,  and  as  Mr.  Blaine.  a  member  of  the  Western 
States  Association,  representing  the  Western  States,  is  here  in  Wash- 
ington and  will  be  able  to  discuss  the  matter  in  detail  better  than  I, 
I  think  I  should  leave  that  question  for  him. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  reason  for  the  governors  being 
here  at  this  particular  time  is  to  endeavor  to  impress  upon  the  Con- 
gress and  upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  and  the  President  of 
the  United  States  the  necessity  of  increasing  the  reclamation  fund 
in  order  that  the  reclamation  work  may  be  carried  on  more  rapidly. 
It  was  not  the  intention.  I  understand,  to  have  the  governors  go  into 
detail  with  reference  to  the  character  of  the  legislation,  but  rather 
to  simply  show  by  their  presence  here  and  what  they  may  say  of 
their  deep  interest,  and  the  deep  interest  of  the  people  of  the  entire 
western  country  in  expanding  this  reclamation  policy.  Mr.  Blaine, 
who  has  been  ^representing  the  Western  States  Reclamation  Asso- 
ciation here,  has  given  more  study  to  the  details  of  this  bill  prob- 
ably than  any  other  person,  so  when  the  tune  arrives  to  go  into  the 
details  of  the  bill  I  suggest  that  Mr.  Blaine  be  called,  but  it  seems 
to  me  that  each  of  the  governors  who  are  here  and  those  who  may 
come  in  before  we  adjourn  should,  as  Gov.  Davis  has  done,  make  a 
brief  statement  of  their  deep  interest  in  the  reclamation  work  and 
the  great  importance  to  the  western  people  and  the  people  of  the 
entire  country  of  bringing  into  cultivation  more  of  these  waste 
lands,  not  only  that  the  food  supply  may  be  increased  but  that  we 
may  be  able  to  furnish  lands  for  the  returned  service  men  who  are 
anxious  to  take  up  agricultural  pursuits. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  As  I  understand  you,  governor,  and  as  I  under- 
stand Mr.  Smith,  you  are  here  to  advance  the  cause  of  irrigation, 
broadly  speaking,  and  some  of  the  members,  Mr.  Blaine,  lor  in- 
stance, who  has  given  the  drafting  of  the  bill  the  most  attention, 
perhaps,  of  anyone,  will  discuss  the  details  of  it  to  us. 

Xow  I  want  to  ask  one  other  question  while  it  is  opportune — and 
it  will  be  sure  to  arise.  As  far  as  I  am  concerned.  I  stand  for  the 
advancement  of  the  cause  of  irrigation  regardless  of  what  bill  may  be 
deemed  to  contain  the  best  provisions  for  the  cause.  I  want  to  ask 
here — we  will  have  to  meet  that  question — whether  the  convention 
at  Denver  considered  the  several  bills  that  have  been  heretofore 
introduced  in  the  last  Congress,  say,  for  instance,  particularly  the 
Smoot  bill,  which  was  Senate  bill  3477,  Sixty-sixth  Congress,  I  have 


6  DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX    THE   UNITED    STATES. 

introduced  that  bill  substantially,  with  some  amendments  that  our 
committee  made  in  the  last  Congress  to  the  Smoot  bill.  I  introduced 
it  again  in  this  Congress  and  I  wish  to  know  now  whether  your  con- 
vention at  Denver  gave  attention  to  the  Smoot  bill  which  was  pending 
in  the  last  Congress.  3477. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Is  that  the  bill  that  passed  the  Senate? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  bill  that  passed  the  Senate,  which  we 
had  up  in  the  House  and  did  not  get  through  the  House. 

Did  you  consider  that  and  reach  the  conclusion  that  you  preferred 
something  like  the  Smith  bill  { 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Just  in  a  general  way.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  various  bills 
before  Congress  were  mentioned,  discussed  in  a  limited  way.  but  the 
sense  of  the  committee  meeting  at  Denver  was  that  something  along 
the  line  of  the  Smith-McXary  bill  was  more  suited  to  reclamation  of 
the  West  than  any  other  bill  that  we  had  taken  up. 

Mr.  SMITH.  These  bills  are  not  antagonistic  in  any  way  at  all. 
One  provides  for  private  capital  in  developing  land;  the  other  provides 
for  Federal  aid. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  any  other  members  of  the  committee  wish  to 
ask  the  governor  a  question  i 

Mr.  RAKER.  Right  in  that  connection,  the  matter  that  is  pending 
primarily  before  the  committee,  and  what  the  governors  are  interested 
in  as  I  understand  it.  and  the  representatives  of  the  governors  of  the 
Western  States,  is  that  the  Government  take  hold  through  some  well- 
defined,  proper  policy,  to  protect  the  Government,  to  lend  assistance 
in  a  material  way  for  the  development  of  this  arid  and  semiarid  land. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Yes;  irrigation  has  outgrown  the  ordinary  private 
individual  or  small  company.  The  irrigation  of  the  future  is  to  be 
done  on  a  large  scale,  and  It  takes  more  capital  than  the  average 
company  can  assemble,  and  that  is  what  the  West  is  asking  for  now, 
that  the  Government  give  us  whatever  aid  it  can,  either  by  some 
form  of  guarantee  of  bonds,  or  through  the  Federal  Farm  Loan 
Board  handle  these  bonds  in  some  wav  until  such  time  as  the  project 
itself  is  of  sufficient  value  that  they  become  attractive  and  market- 
able. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  being  true,  the  suggestion  made  by  the  chairman 
as  to  the  bill  known  as  the  Smoot-Kinkaid  bill 

The  CHAIRMAN  (interposing).  Xo:  not  the  Kinkaid  bill  at  all. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well.  I  believe  in  giving  credit  where  credit  is  due, 
judge. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Xo:  that  was  not  my  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  call  it  the  Smoot  bill.  That  is  a  method  whereby 
large  tracts  through  private  capital  can  be  developed  and  would 
not  interfere  with  the  general  policy  of  the  public  reclamation. 

Gov.  DAVIS.   I  did  not  understand  you  there. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  say  the  bill  that  the  chairman  refers  to  would  not 
in  any  way  interfere  with  the  policy  established  by  the  Government 
and  to  be  carried  on  by  virtue  of  governmental  assistance,  where 
people  have  large  tracts  of  land  and  desire  to  let  the  Government 
operate  it.  if  they  spend  money,  the  private  individuals,  so  that  it 
would  not  interfere  with  what  you  people  stand  for. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  ()a.  no:  indeed.  I  want  to  say  this,  as  far  as  I  am 
personally  concerae  1.  an:l  I  think  that  is  tru?  of  all  of  the  rest  of  the 
representatives  here,  that  anyone  desiring  to  enter  into  a  private 


DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES.  7 

reclamation  project  out  there  should  be  permitted  to  do  so.  I 
don't  think  that  they  should  be  excluded  by  any  means. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  they  are  not  antagonistic? 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Xot  at  all. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  me  ask  one  question  and  then  I  am  through — and 
it  is  a  vital  question  before  the  committee,  to  my  mind,  on  reclama- 
tion. I  want  to  ask  if  your  committee  has  given  thought  to  the 
question  of  the  first  lien  of  the  Government,  whereby  that  could 
be  avoided  and  the  district,  each  of  these  projects  form  districts 
whereby  the  district,  the  land  of  the  district,  would  be  responsible 
for  the  taxes  to  the  end  that  the  farmers  might  obtain  the  benefit 
of  the  farm  loan  act.  Has  your  committee  of  governors  given  any 
thought  to  that ? 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Yes;  we  have  given  considerable  thought  to  that. 

Mr.  Elaine  has  a  statement  prepared  something  along  that  line. 
He  has  gone  into  it  at  some  length.  Of  course  those  are  details  that 
must  be  worked  out.  and  how  best  to  work  them  out.  of  course,  that 
is  a  matter  to  come  up  in  the  future. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  have  nothing  further  now,  Judge  Raker,  I 
would  like  to  ask  one  question  upon  which  I  think  the  opinion  of  the 
organization  of  governors  would  be  helpful — very  helpful — in  the 
House  and  in  the  Senate. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  We  might  get  before  the  committee,  concerning 
Judge  Raker's  comment,  that  this  bill,  H.  R.  2913,  provides  for  the 
inauguration  of  projects  through  a  State  district  or  minor  subdi- 
vision that  would  bring  it  right  within  the  ruling  of  the  Federal 
farm  loan  act  where  they  make  loans  to  irrigation  districts. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes.  I  will  ask  you  this  question,  Governor, 
whether  it  is  the  view  of  your  governors'  organization  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  reclamation  that  the  development,  the  taking  up  and 
development  of  projects,  can  a  great  deal  better  be  conducted  under 
the  auspices  of  the  Government,  specifically  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  the  advantages  being  the  standing  it  would  give 'the  pro- 
•i  that  the  projects  could  be  financed  either  by  the  landowners, 
the  water  users  themselves,  independently  of  Government  responsi- 
bility for  the  financing,  or  through  some  qualified  aid  by  the  Govern- 
ment in  financing,  whether  it  is  not  a  very  great  advantage  to  have 
the  projects  initiated  and  developed  by  the  Government— initiated 
and  developed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  ? 

Gov.  DAVIS.  I  think  that  is  very  desirable;  yes,  sir.  We  discussed 
that  at  considerable  length. 

That  was  the  very  object  of  this  Western  State  Reclamation 
Association — to  unite  the  West  in  cooperating  with  the  Government 
and  ask  the  Government  to  do  the  very  thing  that  you  speak  of  now. 

The  CHAJRMAX.  Yes;  and  let  the  Government  have  supervision 
as  far  as  practicable. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir;  give  it  that  stability  that  it  would  get  from 
the  Government  being  benind  it. 

Mr.  LYOX.  Would  there  be  any  objection  on  the  part  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, if  it  could  be  done,  that  the  bill  finally  decided  on  would 
carry  a  provision  for  -the  reclamation  by  drainage  of  swamp  lands,  as 
well  as  the  irrigation  of  arid  lands,  under  the  same  terms  and  condi- 
tions ? 


8  DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  I  understand  that  the  subject  of  general  reclamation 
has  always  had  in  mind  drainage  and  clearing  of  stump  lands  and 
putting  water  on  arid  lands. 

Mr.  LYOX.  I  ask  that  question  because  I  come  from  a  section 
where  drainage  is  a  question,  and  of  course  I  am  satisfied  that  the 
people  of  my  territory — in  fact,  all  down  South.  Mr.  Chairman — 
would  be  much  more  disposed  to  support  a  bill  for  irrigation  if  it 
carried  with  it  a  provision  to  reclaim  by  drainage  under  the  same 
terms  and  conditions. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Irrigation  and  drainage  go  hand  in  hand,  because  irri- 
gation of  a  project  comes  first,  and  drainage  is  required  sometimes 
later  on.  and  the  two  go  hand  in  hand. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Governor,  has  your  association  taken  up  the  ad- 
visability of  inviting  Congress  at  some  adjournment  to  view  the 
projects  that  are  now  established  ? 

Gov.  DAVIS.  I  think  you  have  a  standing  invitation  from  the 
Western  States  Reclamation  Association  to  visit  the  projects.  I 
know  we  emphasized  that  in  particular  when  we  were  here  a  year  ago, 
and  we  were  very  much  gratified,  indeed,  when  your  committee  made 
a  trip  through  the  West  last  year.  We  believe  that  it  was  of  great 
benefit  to  us  as  well  as  to  the  members  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  I  mean  some  action  on  the  part  of  the  association 
or  the  States  concerned  to  invite  at  the  expense  of  the  States  the 
entire  Congress,  or  100  or  200  Members,  or  as  many  as  might  want  to 
take  advantage  of  the  invitation  to  visit  these  projects.  It  has  been 
agitated  to  some  extent. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  We  have  not  considered  the  situation,  Mr.  Sinnott,  at 
the  expense  of  the  States.  We  think  that  the  Government  is  inter- 
ested: that  this  is  not  a  local  proposition;  but  it  is  a  national  proposi- 
tion :  it  is  of  just  as  much  concern  to  the  East  in  the  way  of  develop- 
ing the  market  for  the  output  of  manufacturers  and  wholesalers  as 
it  is  to  us  in  the  W 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Well.  I  saw  how  the  Appropriations  Committee  was 

impressed  when  they  made  their  last  visit,  and  I  have  regretted  that 

just  one  committee  making  the  visit,  and  I  would  like  to  see 

200  or  300  Members  of  Congress  visit  some  of  these  projects  and  see 

the  success  that  they  are  really  making  of  them. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  It  would  be  very  beneficial,  no  doubt,  and  no  doubt 
many  States  could  have  made  some  provision  to  participate  in  the 
expense,  had  this  matter  been  approached  during  the  sessions  of  the 
legisla" 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  I  know  a  number  of  commercial  bodies  have  taken 
it  up  with  the  idea  of  cooperating  between  various  States  and  bodies 
interested  in  raising  a  fund,  with  the  object  in  view  of  inviting  Con- 
ij-tv—  at  some  adjournment  to  visit  these  projects. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  But  I  do  believe  that  it  is  of  sufficient  importance, 
national  in  scope,  that  our  Government  should  not  hesitate  for  a 
moment  to  pay  the  expense  of  such  a  trip. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  Well,  we  think  so  ourselves,  but  we  can  not  get  the 
vote-  for  that. 

The  CHAIKMAX.  I  concur  with  you.  Governor,  unqualifiedly  in  that 
proposition  that  it  is  very  desirable  that  we  keep  the  cause  of  irriga- 
tion nationalized  all  the  time,  not  localized — that  is,  I  prefer  to  have 
the  General  Government,  the  National  Government,  represent  the 


DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UXITED  STATES.  9 

cau.se  all  the  time  and  exercise  supervision,  as  far  as  may  be  possible, 
until  projects  shall  have  been  fully  developed,  so  as  to  have  uniformity 
and  bring  stability  also,  as  you  have  suggested. 

Are  there  any  further  questions,  gentlemen  ? 

Mr.  HAYDEX"  I  would  like  to  ask  the  governor  a  question.  Of 
course  you  have  no  difficulty  in  agreeing  among  yourselves  as  gover- 
nors of  the  Western  States  that  a  general  policy  of  reclamation  should 
be  adopted  rather  than  to  make  appeals  for  specific  appropriations 
for  particular  projects  in  the  several  States".  We  likewise  have  no 
difficulty  here  in  securing  an  agreement  among  the  western  Members 
of  Congress  that  such  a  general  reclamation  policy  should  be  adopted. 
The  difficulty  is  that  we  of  the  West  are  few  as  compared  with  the 
total  membership,  particularly  in  the  House.  The  strength  of  the 
West  is  greater  in  the  Senate" than  it  is  in  the  House,  because  New 
York  and  Pennsylvania  and  Arizona  and  Idaho  are  on  an  equality 
in  that  body,  but  their  voting  strength  is  vastly  different  in  the 
House.  In  order  to  get  any  legislation  passed,  we  must  have  assist- 
ance of  the  Congressmen  from  the  East,  backed  by  eastern  influence. 
I  would  like  to  inquire  what  the  western  governors  are  doing  to 
secure  that  influence  which  is  essential  in  getting  reclamation  legis- 
lation enacted. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Well,  we  are  carrying  on  an  active  campaign  of  cor- 
respondence at  this  time  through  manufacturers,  for  instance,  show- 
ing— endeavoring  to  show  them  the  importance  of  reclamation  of  the 
West  from  a  commercial  standpoint,  and  I  think  we  are  getting  sup- 

?ort  in  that  particular.  Just  last  Wednesday  we  were  over  at  New 
'ork,  and  Mr.  Blanchard,  of  the  reclamation'department — the  Inte- 
rior Department — who  is  the  publicity  man  of  the  department,  was 
there  and  put  on  pictures  of  development  in  the  West,  showing  the 
sagebrush  plains  and  the  brush  being  removed,  the  dams  being 
built  and  the  water  distributed,  and  the  crops  being  sown  and  har- 
vested, and  all  that.  I  think  we  got  a  considerable  amount  of  valu- 
able publicity  out  of  that. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  I  made  the  inquiry,  because  I  know  how  easy  it  is 
for  a  governor  or  a  Congressman  or  a  Senator  in  any  of  the  Western 
States  to  call  a  meeting  of  his  constituents  and  make  them  a  speech 
about  the  benefits  of  irrigation,  with  which  they  are  all  familiar  and 
to  which  they  are  all  converted,  all  convinced,  before  anything  is 
said  or  done.  The  place  where  the  propaganda  must  be  carried  on — 
if  we  are  to  use  that  much-abused  term — is  in  the  eastern  sections  of 
the  country  where  they  do  not  know  anything  about  irrigation,  and 
where  their  Congressmen  and  Senators  can  best  be  converted  by  the 
fact  that  their  constituents  have  become  interested  in  reclamation  as 
a  national  question. 

There  is  one  other  powerful  source  of  influence  which  can  help  us 
to  secure  the  enactment  of  reclamation  legislation,  and  that  is  the 
active  aid  and  assistance  of  the  President  of  the  United  States. 
I  understand  that  the  western  governors  have  recently  visited  the 
President  and  would  like  to  know  what  he  had  to  say  about  this 
question. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  I  don't  wish  to  quote  the  President,  but  we  called  on 
the  President  yesterday  in  a  body  and  had  a  most  satisfactory 
conference  with  him.  I  don't  think  you  need  to  fear  at  all  not  having 
sympathy  and  cooperation  there. 


10          DEVELOPMENT    OF   AGRICULTURE   IX    THE    UNITED   STATES. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  My  understanding  is  that  the  President  when  a 
candidate  was  all  right  on  the  proposition,  and  I  think  he  will  fulfill 
his  pledges. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.     Will  he  give  out  a  statement  to  that  effect  ( 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  an  idea  that  he  would  have  no  objection  to 
expressing  himself  very  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  cause;  the  question 
is  how  much  money  you  are  going  to  get. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  The  way  that  the  original  reclamation  law  was 
secured  was  first,  that  Mr.  Roosevelt,  as  President  of  the  United 
States,  met  with  the  western  Senators  and  Congressmen  and 
agreed  upon  a  general  policy  of  reclamation,  and  then  sent  a  message 
to  Congress  favoring  the  enactment  of  that  particular  policy.  Every- 
body pulled  together  and  the  law  was  enacted.  When  the  time  came 
to  extend  the  period  of  payment  of  construction  charges  on  reclama- 
tion projects  from  10  to'  20  years,  the  western  Congressmen  and 
Senators  and  the  then  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Secretary  Lane. 
again  agreed  upon  a  general  policy  which  was  backed  by  President 
Wilson,  and  put  across.  The  same  thing  must  be  done  this  time. 
It  is  utterly  futile  to  imagine  that  the  Members  of  the  House  and  the 
Senators  from  the  States  of  the  West,  looking  merely  to  advancement 
and  growth  of  their  own  localities,  can  get  anywhere.  It  must  be 
done  as  a  matter  of  national  benefit,  and  the  man  who  speaks  for  the 
Nation  is  the  President  of  the  United  States.  He  must  agree  with  us 
upon  a  reclamation  policy  and  give  it  his  hearty  support  before  it 
can  be  enacted  into  law.  There  is  no  dispute  "about  that.  I  am 
glad  indeed  that  the  governors  have  conferred  with  the  President 
and  found  him  sympathetic. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  sure  that  will  be  very  helpful. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  I  believe  your  committee  remembers  when  we  were 
here  a  year  ago  the  Western  States  put  on  a  campaign  of  education 
along  this  line  as  having  both  of  the  old  parties  indorse  reclamation 
in  their  platforms.  We  wrote  personal  letters  to  every  delegate  that 
was  elected  to  each  of  these  conventions,  and  when  they  met  we  had 
no  trouble  having  a  good  strong  plank  put  into  the  platform.  Each 
candidate  for  President  committed  himself  unconditionally  for  recla- 
mation, both  in  writing  and  in  public  speeches.  Yesterday  the 
President  reiterated  to  us— he  said  to  us,  >My  whole  heart  is:  with 
you,"  and  just  the  thing  that  you  speak  of  here  I  think  will  be  forth- 
coming without  a  doubt.  I  would  not  say  that  it  would  come  in 
this  special  session  of  Congress,  because  you  are  crowded  for  time 
and  you  are  very  busy.  I  think  it  would  please  him  very  much, 
however,  if  it  would  pass  at  this  Congress,  but  I  would  not  feel  that 
you  could  depend  upon  having  such  a  thing  as  a  special  message 
and  so  on. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  How  is  that  ? 

Gov.  DAVIS.  I  don't  think  you  could  figure  on  a  special  message 
during  this  short  session,  because  you  are  so  busy  and  there  is  so 
much  before  Congress. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  In  which  House  do  you  think  the  attempt  should  be 
made  first  to  pass  the  bill  I 

Gov.  DAVIS.   I  haven't  given  that  any  thought. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Don't  you  think  that  is  a  very  important  point? 

Gov.  DAVIS.  I  have  gained  the  impression  here  that  the  bill  might 
come  from  the  Senate  with  perhaps  more  ease  that  it  would  from  the 
House. 


DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES.         11 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  They  have  held  extensive  hearings  in  the  Senate. 

Goy.  DAVIS.  And  it  might  pass  the  Senate  easier  than  it  would  up 
here  in  the  House. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  They  have  already  held  extensive  hearings  on  this 
bill. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Yes;  they  have. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  there  are  no  other  questions,  gentlemen,  we  will 
hear  Gov.  Campbell  of  Arizona. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  THOMAS  E.  CAMPBELL,  GOVERNOR  OF 
ARIZONA. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  that  Gov.  Davis  has  cov- 
ered the  points  of  the  various  States  in  the  West  very  fully,  and  any- 
thing that  I  might  add  would  simply  be  a  reiteration  of  what  he  has 
stated.  I  don't  think  it  would  be  well  to  take  up  the  time  of  this 
committee  simply  rehashing  the  statements  that  he  has  made.  We 
are  all  in  very  happy  and  earnest  accord  with  the  position  taken  by 
Gov.  Davis,  as  representing  the  Western  State  Reclamation  Asso- 
ciation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  all  take  judicial  notice  that  Arizona  is  in 
favor  of  irrigation  anyhow. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  Yes,  indeed. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Actual  notice,  too. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  pleased  to  have  your  practical  suggestions, 
Governor,  as  well  as  any  theories  that  you  may  have  to  place  before 
the  committee. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  Well,  it  is  very  good  of  you  to  ask  me  for  sugges- 
tions, but  I  don't  know  of  any  that  I  can  present  to  this  body  that 
would  illuminate  it  any.  My  presence  here  is  to  subscribe  to  the 
principle  of  reclamation.  WTe  know  what  it  has  done  for  the  West; 
we  want  more  of  it;  and  the  particular  thing  in  our  being  here  is  to 
show  to  the  Congress  the  unanimity  of  opinion  and  desire  on  the  part 
of  the  arid  and  semiarid  States  toward  the  general  policy  of  this 
composite  bill  known  as  the  Smith-McNary  bill.  In  our  conference 
at  Denver  here  last  week  we  unanimously  adopted  a  resolution  cover- 
ing the  principles  of  this  bill  that  was  then  discussed  before  that 
conference. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  I  suppose  you  will  admit,  Governor,  that 
Arizona  has  one  of  the  greatest  projects  under  the  national  reclama- 
tion law  of  any  State,  and  possibly  you  would  admit  that  it  is  the 
greatest  of  any  ? 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  I  would  admit  that.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  And  the  people  under  this  project  are  great  spenders. 
In  other  words,  the  thing  that  has  to  be  impressed  upon  the  eastern 
man  is  the  fact  that  irrigationists  buy  automobiles,  all  kinds  of  clothes, 
good  clothes,  good  shoes,  all  kinds  of  supplies  that  are  made  in  the 
East,  and  for  every  farm  that  is  taken  up  in  the  West,  the  East  is 
benefited,  and  it  is  not  a  selfish  motive  that  we  assume,  but  it  is  a 
motive  that  this  is  something  to  help  the  whole  country. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  There  is  no  question  about  that,  Mr.  Congress- 
man. Some  times  I  fear  they  spend  too  much  for  their  own  good. 
In  a  town  of  30,000,  Phoenix,  being  the  center  of  the  Salt  River 
project  to  which  the  chairman  referred,  we  have  no  less  than  10,000 
automobiles. 


12         DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UXITKD   STATES. 

Mr.  AREXTZ.  That  will  answer  my  question.  That  is  what  I 
mean. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask  the  gentleman  a  question? 
When  are  you  gentlemen  going  to  leave  Washington  ? 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  I  wish  I  could  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  Will  you  be  here  Monday  I 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  I  will  be  very  glad  to  be  here. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  What  I  want  to  get  at  is  that  I  come  from  a  district 
in  which  we  have,  not  every  year,  but  as  a  general  thing,  too  much 
rain  in  the  early  spring  months,  April  and  May.  and  practically  none 
sometimes  during  June,  July,  and  August,  and  generally  always 
during  July  and  August.  Our  crops  start  out  very  nicely  through 
the  spring  season,  unless  they  suffer  from  too  much  rain.'  and  they 
generally  burn  up  during  August;  therefore  in  my  district  we  have 
ample  and  an  abundant  surplus  of  water  in  the  spring,  if  it  could  be 
impounded,  and  none  during  the  time  when  crops  arc  making,  and 
I  have  an  inclination  to  either  offer  some  amendment  to  this  bilf  when 
it  comes  up  for  passage  or  to  introduce  a  different  bill — that  is,  not  in 
conflict  with  this  bill,  of  course. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Oklahoma  yield  just  a 
moment  ?  There  are  several  gentlemen  here  to  be  heard"  and  we  do 
not  want  to  take  up  that  question  now. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  No;  but  what  I  want  to  get  at  is  whether  these 
gentlemen  are  willing  to  come  to  my  office  on  Monday  or  some  other 
da3T  next  week  and  confer  on  this  matter  and  give  me  some  more 
information  on  it  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  satisfied  that  they  will  make  some  arrange- 
ments with  you,  but  you  can  see  about  that  after  the  hearing  con- 
cludes. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  I  am  quite  sure  we  will  be  very  glad  to  make  an 
engagement  with  the  Congressman  and  discuss  the  features  of  that 
proposition. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  I  would  like  to  see  you  on  whatever  day  that  is 
convenient. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Gov.  Campbell,  I  might  suggest — I  did  not  make  it 
quite  clear  a  moment  ago — about  the  President  expressing  himself, 
his  pleasure,  if  this  special  session  should  see  fit  to  act  favorably  on 
this  measure.  I  didn't  bring  that  out  clearlv. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  Down  in  our  country  we  have  developed  only  one 
diplomat,  and  that  is  Representative  Hayden.  I  don't  know  how  far 
one  could  go  and  not  be  guilty  of  lese  majeste  here  is  Washington. 
The  governor  of  Idaho  stated  almost  exactly  what  the  President 
slated  yesterday.  However,  I  think  that  we  should  know  the  bal- 
ance, and  if  we  arc  put  under  arrest  we  won't  mind  it.  The  President 
stated  that  this  was  an  extraordinary  session  called  primarily  for  the 
purpose  of  tax  and  tariff  legislation,  and  that  while  he  was  in  hearty 
accord  witli  the  spirit  of  reclamation,  he  hoped  that  this  would  not 
embarrass  the  purposes  for  the  call  of  this  Congress,  but  that  if  this 
measure  could  be  passed  at  this  Congress  without  interfering  with  the 
purposes  of  the  call  for  this  session,  he  would  be  pleased.  I  think  that 
is  substantially  correct,  is  it  not,  Gov.  Ma  boy  '. 

Gov.  MABEY.  Yes. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  That  is  the  point  I  did  n6t  state  quite  clearly. 


DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES.         13 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  think  it  is  quite  true  that  the  President  has  so  inti- 
mated to  quite  a  number  of  western  Members  of  Congress  since  the 
inauguration,  that  he  was  friendly  to  the  reclamation  of  arid  lands, 
and  of  a  wider  and  more  comprehensive  policy  along  that  line. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Now,  Gov.  Mabey,  the  committee  will  be  pleased 
to  hear  you. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  CHARLES  R.  MABEY,  GOVERNOR  OF 

UTAH. 

Gov.  MABEY.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  have  nothing  further 
to  add  to  what  has  already  been  said  except  to  state  that  Utah 
heartily  indorses  this  movement.  We  agree  exactly  with  what  the 
other  States  are  doing.  I  think  we  know  something  about  irrigation. 
We  like  to  boast  of  what  we  have  done. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  You  started  the  initial  irrigation  system,  I  believe. 

Gov.  MABEY.  We  like  to  boast  of  having  been  the  first  State  to 
initiate  irrigation  in  this  country. 

I  was  pleased  to  hear  Gov.  Davis  state  that  irrigation  has  outgrown 
the  power  of  private  capital,  and  that  is  the  reason  why  we  are  here. 
We  need  the  capital  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  behind 
us  for  further  development.  As  you  gentlemen  all  know,  in  the 
earlier  history  of  irrigation  the  farmer  took  his  water  out  from  the 
small  streams  that  cost  him  practically  nothing  to  develop  his  land, 
and  with  the  growth  of  the  States,  larger  bodies  or  streams  of  water 
were  taken  out  until  now  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  cope  with  the 
situation  without  help  from  the  outside. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  Right  there,  Governor,  have  you  any  difficulty  in 
your  State  by  reason  of  conflict  arising  between  your  national  recla- 
mation projects  and  your  private  irrigation  projects  ? 

Gov.  MABEY.  None  whatever. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  You  have  no  controversies  over  rights  to  water? 

Gov.  MABEY.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  It  occurred  to  me  that  there  might  be  cases,  while 
the  chairman  stated  there  was  no  conflict  between  the  Senate  bill 
and  the  House  bill,  that  it  might  result  in  conflict  later  on  in  attempt- 
ing to  secure  water  for  these  private  projects  and  for  the  national 
projects,  that  it  would  be  better  to  have  one  policy  only,  namely,  a 
national  one  and  discard  the  other.  I  would  like  the  opinion  of  the 
governors  on  that  question. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  just  say  to  the  gentleman  from  South 
Dakota  that  so  far  wherever  the  Government  has  developed  a  project 
under  the  national  reclamation  law  and  has  found  projects  already 
in  operation,  they  have  generally  taken  them  over,  and  the  private 
projects  have  been  glad  to  be  put  under  the  control  of  the  General 
Government.  They  unified  the  operation,  and  it  has  been  helpful  in 
every  instance  to  the  private  projects.  It  has  been  a  boon  to  the 
private  projects  that  a  Government  project  has  been  developed  in 
the  same  locality.  It  always  has  been  a  benefit  to  private  projects, 
and  the  Government  reservoirs  have  been 'furnishing  them  with  water 
in  times  of  stress.  We  passed  an  act  for  the  selling  of  water  to 
private  projects,  so  that  there  has  been  no  conflict  at  all,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  the  General  Government,  the  operation  of  the  General 


14         DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

Government,  has  developed  a  policy  for  the  development  of  projects 
under  the  reclamation  law  that  has  been  very  beneficial  to  the  private 
projects,  and  harmony  has  existed  wherever  I  have  heard  anything 
about  it  in  each  instance. 

Gov.  MABEY.  I  might  say,  gentlemen,  in  connection  with  this,  that 
we  have  had  under  consideration  in  Utah  the  storage  of  the  head- 
waters of  what  are  known  as  the  Wever  and  Provo  Rivers.  It  is  a 
project  that  would  be  entirel}*  too  big  for  any  of  our  capital  to  handle. 
Now,  the  lines  which  would  come  under  this  project  are  already 
partly  developed  through  irrigation,  but  I  know  it  is  the  sentiment 
of  the  people  there  that  they  would  be  glad  to  have  the  Federal 
Government  come  in  and  take  over  the  proposition  and  work  out  a 
big  scheme  that  would  redeem  hundreds  of  thousands  more  acres  of 
land. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Isn't  it  also  true  that  the  Government  can  not  obtain 
any  water  rights  without  securing  those  rights  under  the  laws  of  the 
particular  States  ? 

Gov.  MABEY.  That  is  my  understanding;  yes,  sir. 

There  is  one  matter  that  I  have  heard  discussed  considerably  since 
coming  to  the  governor's  conference  and  since  coming  here,  and  that 
is  the  objection  that  Central  States  might  have — I  mean  the  Missis- 
sippi Valley  States — might  have  to  this  because  of  the  increase  in  the 
output  of  farm  products.  To  me  the  so-called  objection  is  puerile. 
We  are  growing  so  rapidly  in  population  in  our  cities  that  we  can 
hardly  take  care  of  markets,  and  besides  the  Pacific  coast  has  grown 
so  quickly,  so  rapidly  in  population  in  the  last  few  years,  that  we  in 
Utah  are  sending  most  of  our  products,  such  as  our  wheat,  to  the  Pacific 
coast,  and  there  is  a  very  large  market  developed  in  China  and  Japan. 
So  to  me  the  objection,' if  there  is  such — you  may  not  have  heard  it 
here — does  not  amount  to  anything  at  all. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  That  same  objection  was  urged  for  30  years  against 
the  passage  of  the  original  homestead  act. 

Gov.  MABEY.  Yes,  sir.  There  is  another  feature  connected  with 
this  particular  Stttith-McNary  bill  that  hasn't  been  brought  out,  and 
that  is  ref erring  to  taking  care  of  the  ox-service  man  in  some  way. 
This  bill,  as  I  understand  it,  takes  care  of  him  not  for  one  vear  or  two 
vears  but  for  good.  As  an  ex-ser\  ice  man  that  feature  of  it  particu- 
larlv  appeals  to  me. 

Now,  gentlemen.  L  don't  know  that  1  have  anything  further  to  add. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Let  me  ask  you  this:  A  number  of  representatives 
and  Senators  met  with  the  Western  Irrigation  Congress  here  about 
two  months  ago.  1  believe  your  predecessor  was  then  chairman,  Gov. 
Spry.  You  gentlemen  are  part  of  that  congress,  are  you  ( 

Gov.  MABEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  Hrnsi-KTH.  Will  you  have  a  committee  here  during  the  ses- 
sions, this  session,  representative  of  your  congress  '. 

Gov.  MABEY.  Yes,  sir:  we  have  Mr.  l>laine.  who  will  be  here  all  the 
time. 

Mr.  HrDSPETii.  So  that  we  may  confer? 

Gov.  MVBEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  AKKNTZ.  May  1  ask  one  question?  This  is'not  exactly  apropos 
to  this  question,  but  it  has  to  do  with  irrigation.  There  is  a  time 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED  STATES.         15 

coming  when  you  are  going  to  dam  the  Green  River  above  Jensen 
near  Vernal  in  Uintah  County,  Utah. 

Gov.  MABEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  Now,  has  the  question  come  up  to  your  mind  relative 
to  the  international  question  involved  in  the  storage  of  the  water  of 
the  Green  River  and  the  disposition  of  that  water  on  soils  outside  of 
Mexico,  and  don't  you  think  it  would  be  a  good  scheme  to  start  that 
now.  so  you  will  get  an  answer  to  that  question,  so  that  when  it  does 
come  up  in  5  or  10  vears  from  now  we  will  know  what  we  are  going 
to  do  ? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  That  has  been  pretty  well  settled,  I  think. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  No,  that  has  not  been  settled  yet.  That  was  the 
bone  of  contention  the  other  day  when  we  called  on  Secretary  Fall. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  held  on  that, 
you  know,  in  the  New  Mexico  and  Texas  and  Mexican  case. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  You  get  my  idea  ? 

Gov.  MABEY.  I  understand  you  thoroughly,  I  think,  and  since  this 
matter  was  discussed  at  some  length  during  our  meeting  at  Denver, 
wherein  seven  States  were  represented  in  what  is  called  the  League 
of  the  Southwest,  Gov.  Campbell  being  president  of  that  league.  I 
think  perhaps  it  would  be  better  for  him  to  answer  that  than  for  me, 
and  with  your  permission  I  will  withdraw  and  let  Gov.  Campbell  make 
that  statement. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  Appreciating  the  difficulty  that  would  ensue 
sooner  or  later  on  this  interstate  and  international  question  of  the 
use  of  the  waters  of  the  Colorado  River,  which,  as  you  know,  is  a 
tremendous  stream  in  its  flow,  embracing  some  244.000  square 
miles,  covering  extensively  seven  States  of  Wyoming,  Colorado. 
Utah,  Nevada.  New  Mexico.  California,  and  Arizona,  we  a  year  and 
a  half  ago  met  and  discussed  the  problems  of  the  Colorado  River  in 
its  various  angles.  Finally  at  Denver  last  August  we  agreed  that  it 
would  be  necessary  to  enter  into  a  compact  or  treaty  among  the 
States  themselves  and  the  Federal  Government,  to  the'end  that  the 
rights  of  the  use  of  the  water  of  the  Colorado  River  and  its  tribu- 
taries would  be  adjudicated  and  adjusted  before  any  big  scheme, 
such  as  will  probably  come  about  in  the  matter  of  reclamation, 
should  be  entered  into. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  There  is  a  case  now  pending  in  the  Supreme  Court, 
isn't  there,  to  determine  that  matter  as  between  two  States  ( 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  Yes:  but  we  want  to  keep  out  of  the  courts.  Mr. 
Sinnott:  we  want  to  build  dams  and  power  plants. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  I  thought  probably  that  decision  when  it  is  handed 
down  would  determine  the  rights  as  between  the  respective  States. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  Yes;  there  is  no  question  about  that;  but  there 
is  a  provision  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  whereby 
States  may  enter  into  treaties  with  each  other. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Provided  the  treaties  are  ratified  by  Congress. 

Gov.  MABEY.  That  decision,  however,  would  not  decide  just  what 
each  State  under  the  Colorado  River  is  entitled  to. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  Oh,  no;  it  would  just  be  a  legal  point. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  It  would  decide  the  general  legal  question  ( 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  Yes.  Answering  your  question,  all  of  the  legis- 
latures in  the  various  Southern  States  referred  to  have  now  arranged 


16         DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

the  first  legislative  step  to  enter  into  this  treaty — this  compact — - 
and  we  have  come  on  here  and  a  bill  will  be  introduced,  I  think, 
to-day  or  to-morrow  requesting  the  Federal  Government  to  join  us 
in  arranging  for  this  committee  to  do  just  that  work. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Mr.  Chairman.  I  thinK  there  is  a  little  misunder- 
standing there.  Gov.  Campbell  talked  about  "treaties"  between 
the  States.  I  think  Ms  view  is  certainly  a  good  one.  The  gentle- 
man from  Nevada  spoke  primarily,  as  I  understood  him,  of  the 
Mexican  difficulty.  I  think  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
has  disposed  of  the  Mexican  question.  The  other  one,  of  course,  is 
different  proposition,  and  the  governor  has  presented  the  right  view. 
I  would  like  to  have  Kansas  get  in  on  that  treaty,  too.  Colorado 
has  been  eating  us  up  on  that. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  If  I  may  answer  that,  after  this  plan  was  evolved 
and  got  well  underway,  a  number  of  the  other  States  made  the  same 
suggestions,  but  we  did  not  think  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to  attempt 
to  legislate  matters  out  of  court.  The  Colorado  at  the  present  time 
has  none  of  the  difficulties  that  you  are  experiencing  with  the  Ar- 
kansas, and  for  that  reason  we  were  desirous  of  seeing  if  this  would 
not  work  out,  adjudicate  these  things  before  and  not  after  we  got 
into  court,  and  we  are  hopeful  that  if  it  does  work  out,  then  there 
will  be  a  similar  compact  and  treaty  between  Colorado  and  Kansas 
and  Wyoming  and  Nebraska  and  Oregon  and  Washington  and 
Montana. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  We  haven't  found  the  courts  take  just  the  right  view 
of  that.  I  am  in  favor  of  that  treaty. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now  we  have  the  representatives  of  some  other 
governors  here. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  attorney  general  of  Colorado  is 
here,  and  he  might  have  something  to  say. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  be  glad  to  hear  the  attorney  general  of 
Colorado. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  VICTOR  E.  KEYES,  ATTORNEY  GENERAL 
OF  COLORADO. 

Mr.  KEYES.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  really  have  nothing  to  add  to  what 
has  already  been  said  on  the  various  questions.  The  "Western 
States,  of  course,  are  interested  in  the  general  cause  of  irrigation. 
We  hope  for  some  general  reclamation  project,  sufficient  in  scope 
to  take  in  the  various  States,  and  especially  perhaps  are  we  thinking 
of  the  Colorado  River  project,  which  at  present  is  largely  undeveloped. 
Along  the  line  that  Gov.  Campbell  spoke  of.  the  various  States  are 
endeavoring  at  least  to  negotiate  these  treaties  among  themselves  so 
the  States  will  be  enabled  to  keep  out  of  litigstion.  To  this  end  all 
the  States  in  the  Colorado  basin  have  appointed  a  so-called  river 
commissioner,  and  it  is  hoped  that  these  river  commissioners  may 
work  in  harmony  with  the  general  reclamation  act  so  that  there  will 
not  be  this  conflict  if  interest  among  the  vatious  States. 

The  CiiAiKMA.x.  Let  me  ask  right  there,  have  you  passed — has 
your  legislature  passed  any  laws  authorizing  the  appointmentof 
commissioners  for  that  purpose  '. 

Mr.  KF.YK.S.   Yes,  *ir. 


DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED   STATES.         17 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Commissioners  from  the  States  to  be  bound  by 
their  agreements  ( 

Mr.  KEYES.  I  think  all  of  the  States  in  the  Colorado  River  Basin  now 
have  passed  laws — the  legislatures  have  enacted  laws — authorizing 
the  governor  to  appoint  a  commissioner  to  negotiate  treaties  pertain- 
ing to  the  waters,  for  instance,  of  the  Colorado.  These  commissioners 
then  are  to  report  back  to  the  legislatures.  It  is  also  asked  that  the 
Federal  Government  likewise  appoint  a  commissioner  or  commis- 
sioners to  cooperate  with  the  commissioners  of  the  various  States. 
It  is  believed  that  in  this  way  the  Federal  Government  and  the  States 
may  work  in  harmony,  so  there  will  not  be  this  conflict  of  interest. 

I  might  say.  with  reference  to  Kansas,  Mr.  Congressman,  that  I 
received  word  a  few  days  ago  from  Attorney  General  Hopkins,  ol 
Kansas,  to  the  effect  that  Gov.  Allen,  he  thought,  would  appoint 
such  a  commissioner.  That  would  be  subject,  however,  to  legis- 
lative enactment,  but  if  the  report  of  the  commissioner  were  reported 
back  and  adopted  by  the  legislature  I  presume  it  would  be  binding  in 
the  same  way  as  though  it  were  authorized  originally  by  legislative 
action. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Have  you  any  idea  of  the  prospect  of  a  decision  of 
that  Wyoming  and  Colorado  case  ? 

Mr.  KEYES.  It  has  been  argued  and  has  been  ready  for  decision  for 
a  long  time.  I  have  thought  that  we  should  have  a  decision  every 
montn,  but  it  may  be  years  before  a  decision  is  secured. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  It  is  likely  that  that  decision  will  solve  some  of  these 
legal  question  between  respective  States. 

Mr.  KEYES.  It  may,  but  the  Colorado-Kansas  case  did  not  solve 
very  much,  because  they  went  off  on  another  point.  So  it  is  rather 
difficult  to  say  just  what  the  effect  will  be,  but,  as  Gov.  Campbell  has 
so  well  pointed  out,  so  far  at  least  as  the  waters  of  the  Colorado  are 
concerned,  it  is  a  new  project,  and  if  we  can  arrange  these  matters 
beforehand  we  can  keep  out  of  litigation.  Litigation  is  expensive; 
it  is  costly:  and  usually  does  not  do  very  much  good.  Colorado  has 
been  sued  by,  I  think,  most  of  the  States  all  around  here.  We  are 
anxious  to  keep  out  of  litigation,  if  possible. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  it  would  be  well  for  the 
benefit  of  your  record  to  have  this  brief  resolution  read  into  it  on 
this  particular  point. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well,  you  may  read  it,  if  you  will. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL  (reading) : 

"Whereas  the  States  of  Arizona,  California,  Colorado,  Nevada,  New  Mexico,  Utah,  and 
Wyoming  have  by  appropriate  legislation  authorized  the  governors  of  said  States 
to  appoint  commissioners  representing  said  States  for  the  purpose  of  entering  into 
a  compact  or  agreement  between  said  States  and  between  said  States  and  the  United 
States  respecting  the  future  utilization  and  disposition  of  the  waters  of  the  Colorado 
River  and  the  streams  tributary  thereto-;  and 

"Whereas  the  governors  of  said  several  States  have  named  and  appointed  the  commis- 
sioners contemplated  by  the  legislative  acts  aforesaid:  Now  therefore  be  it 
Resolved,  That  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  be,  and  it  is  hereby,  requested  to 

provide  for  the  appointment  of  commissioners  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  to  act 

as  members  of  said  commission ;  and  be  it  further 
Resolved,  That  the  proposed  draft  of  a  bill  for  presentation  to  Congress,  a  copy  of 

•which  is  hereto  attached,  be  offered  as  a  suggestion  for  legislation  for  the  purposes 

aforesaid;  and  be  it  further 

56664—21 2 


18         DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

Resolved,  That  Gov.  Thomas  E.  Campbell,  of  Arizona,  and  the  governors  of  the  other 
States  in  the  Colorado  River  Basin,  or  such  representatives  as  they  may  severally 
designate,  be,  and  they  hereby  are.  authorized  to  present  this  resolution  to  the  Presi- 
dent and  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

We.  the  undersigned,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  resolution  was  adopted 
by  unanimous  vote  at  a  meeting  of  the  governors  of  Arizona,  California,  Colorado, 
Nevada.  New  Mexico,  Utah,  and  Wyoming,  held  at  the  capitol  at  Denver,  in  the 
State  of  Colorado,  on'.the  10th  day  of  May,  1921. 

THOMAS  E.  CAMPBELL, 

Governor  of  Arizona. 
WM.  D.  STEPHENS, 

Governor  of  California. 
By  W.  F.  MCCLURE, 

State  Engineer. 
OLIVER  H.  SHOUP, 

Governor  of  Colorado. 
EMMET  D.  BOYLE, 

Governor  of  Xevada* 
MERRITT  C.  MECHEM, 

Governor  of  Xen:  Mexico. 
CHAS.  R.  MABEY. 

Governor  of  Utah. 
ROBERT  D.  CAREY, 
Governor  o 


Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Have  3*011  a  copy  of  the  proposed  bill  ? 
Gov.  CAMPBELL.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  certainly  a  verv  constructive  proposition. 
Mr.  SIXXOTT.  I  would  like  to  have  tho  bill  read. 
Gov.  CAMPBELL.  The  proposed  bill  accompanying  the  resolution 
just  read  is  as  follows: 

A  BILL  To  provide  for  a  compact  commission  between  the  States  of  Arizona,  California,  Colorado, 
Nevada,  Xew  Mexico,  Utah,  and  Wyoming  and  between  said  States  and  the  United  States  respecting 
the  disposition  and  utilization  of  the  waters  of  the  Colorado  River  for  irrigation  and  other  uses,  and  for 
other  purposes. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Congress  assembled,  That  a  joint  commission,  to  be  composed  of  representatives  of 
the  States  of  Arizona,  California,  Colorado,  Nevada,  New  Mexico,  Utah,  and  Wyo- 
ming, and  of  two  representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  be  appointed  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  is  hereby  authorized  and  constituted  for  the  pur- 
pose of  negotiating  and  entering  into  an  arrangement,  compact,  or  agreement  between 
the  said  States  and  the  United  States  respecting  the  further  utilization  and  the  dispo- 
sition of  the  waters  of  the  Colorado  River  and  streams  tributary  thereto  and  tixing 
and  determining  the  rights  of  said  States  and  of  the  United  States  in  and  to  the  use, 
benefit,  and  disposition  of  the  waters  of  said  streams:  Proiidtd,  That  any  arrangement, 
compact,  or  agreement  so  entered  into  by  representatives  of  said  States  and  of  the 
United  States  shall  not  be  binding  or  obligatory  upon  any  of  the  parties  thereto  unless 
and  until  the  same  shall  have  l^een  ratified  and  approved  by  the  legislature  of  each 
of  said  States  and  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  would  be  a  very  complete  legal  arrangement. 

Mr.  UERRICK.  Would  the  chairman  allow  me  to  ask  just  one  ques- 
tion ?  Would  you  gentlemen  representing  these  States  object  to  an 
amendment  something  like  this,  that  any  other  State  affected  thereby 
would  be  admitted  into  this  sort  of  a  —  whatever  you  choose  to  call 
it,  whether  you  choose  to  call  it  an  agreement  of  States,  or  whatever 
other  name  might  eventually  be  adopted  —  would  you  object  to  an 
amendment  to  the  effect  that  any  other  State  affected  thereby  might 
be  admitted  ( 


DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES.         19 

GOT.  CAMPBELL.  There  is  no  other  State  affected  along  the  Colorado 
River  basin. 

Mr.  HERKICK.  Xo;  but  this  will  become  a  matter  of  general  scope, 
applicable  to  all  streams  originating  in  one  State  and  running  into 
another. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  In  my  opinion  I  don't  see  any  particular  objection 
if  an  amendment  could  be  brought  about  and  inserted  in  this  bill 
allowing  other  States  to  come  in  as  a  general  proposition. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  Well,  if  the  chairman  will  permit  me  just  two  or 
three  brief  words, 'I  will  explain  what  is  in  my  mind. 

You  see  the  State  of  Mexico  for  one,  they  have  the  following 
rivers  originating  in  their  State  and  running  into  my  State:  the 
South  Canadian,  Beaver  River,  and  the  Cimarron  River,  partly  in 
New  Mexico  and  partly  in  Colorado.  Those  three  rivers  originate 
beyond  our  State  and'flow  into  our  State,  which  gives  us  a  very 
similar,  analogous  case  to  the  Colorado  and  Kansas  case.  No  con- 
troversy has  been  raised  so  far,  but  there  is  no  telling  when  one 
might  be. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  would  be  a  good  example — precedent  or 
whatever  you  might  call  it — for  New  Mexico  and  Oklahoma  to  emu- 
late, you  see.  it  is  a  good  pattern  for  them  to  go  by. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  That  is  what  I  am  driving  at. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Nobody  could  have  any  objection  to  that  at  all. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  No;  the  question  of  treaties  between  States  is 
no  new  thing,  although  the  matter  of  adjudication  of  waters  in  a 
stream  of  this  sort  is.  Just  the  other  day  a  treaty  was  entered  into 
between  the  States  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey  in  the  matter  of 
the  utilization  of  the  harbor  of  New  York.  We  have  the  boundary 
cases  between  Kentucky  and  Tennessee.  So  that  matter  could  follow 
after  this  becomes  workable,  which  we  hope  it  will. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Oregon  and  Washington  have  entered  into  an  agree- 
ment regarding  the  fishing  on  the  Columbia  River. 

Gov.  CAMPBELL.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  would  like  to  hear  you  now,  Mr.  Ely. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  SIMS  ELY,  SECRETARY  RESOURCE 
BOARD  AND  MEMBER  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE,  WEST- 
ERN STATE  RECLAMATION  ASSOCIATION,  PHOENIX, 
ARIZ. 

Mr.  ELY.  As  Gov.  Davis  stated  a  few  moments  ago.  a  resolution 
was  adopted  at  Denver  approving  in  principle  the  Smith-McNary 
bill,  and  that  is  the  resolution,  as  I  understand  it,  that  you  would 
like  to  have  filed  here  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  we  wish  to  have  that  filed,  and  would  like  to 
have  you  send  it. 

Mr.  ELY.  I  will  furnish  it  to  your  secretary. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well,  it  will  be  filed  then  and  incorporated 
in  the  record. 


20         DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

(The  paper  referred  to  follows:) 

RESOLUTION'  ADOPTED  AT  THE  CONFERENCE  OF  THE  GOVERNORS  REPRESENTING  THE 
STATES  CONSTITUTING  THE  WESTERN  STATES  RECLAMATION  ASSOCIATION  AT  DENVER, 
MAY  11,  1921. 

Be  it  resolved  by  the  governors  of  the  States  of  the  Western  Stages  Reclamation  Associa- 
in  conference  assemblt n  <\>  !/<  m<r.  Coin.,  this  ll>h  fhi>i  of  linn.  l't_'l.  Th.it  the  prin- 
ciples expressed  in  the  bills  now  pending  before  Conure-s  and  introdur-ed  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  by  Mr.  Smith  of  Idaho  and  in  the  Senate  by  Mr.  McXary 
of  Oregon,  providing  for  the  appropriation  of  $250.000.000  for. reclamation  pun 
have  the  approval  of  this  conference  and  the  governors  here  assembled  recommend 
favorable  consideration  of  said  measures  by  Conm 

THOMAS  E.  CAMPBELL. 

Governor  of  Arizona. 
WILLIAM  D.  STEI  B 

Governor  of  California. 
By  W.  F.  MC.-CI.URE, 
Slab 
OLIVER  SHCUP, 

'/"  Colorado. 
D.  W.  DAVIS. 

Governor  of  Idaho. 
EMMET  D.  BOYLE. 

i  n\(>r  of  Xeiada. 
MERRITT  ('.  MECHEM. 

Governor  of  A 
BEN  W.  OLCOTT, 

Governor  of  Oregon. 
By  WM.  J.  HANLEY. 
CHARLES  R.  MABEY, 

Governor  of  Utah. 

S.  R.  McKELVIE. 

Gorernor  of  X(bru*!.-u. 
By  ROBT.  H.  WILLIS. 
ROBERT  D.  CAREY. 

"ing. 

By  FRANK  C.  EMERSON. 
Louis  F.  HART. 

d'ofifnor  of  }\~<i*J<ington. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  anvone  else,  governor  ? 

Gov.  DAVIS.  I  think  that  is  all.  Gov.  Hart,  for  some  reason,  is  not 
here.  He  perhaps  missed  the  hour  or  the  room. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  Mr.  Blaine  is  going  to  be  here  during  the 
session,  I  believe. 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman;  for  your  aid  and  assistance,  Mr. 
Blaine  will  be  here,  representing  the  Western  States,  also  Mr.  Brown, 
of  Idaho,  is  here,  and  Mr.  Sims  Ely  is  going  to  remain  in  the  city  for  a 
while  to  cooperate  and  lend  every  assistance  to  Members  of  Congress 
that  they  possibly  can.  We  wilTnave  from  two  to  three  men  here  for 
some  time. 

I  was  very  glad  to  hear  Gov.  Mabey  bring  out  the  fact  that  this  bill 
would  go  on  perpetually  for  many  years  to  come,  anyway,  taking  care 
of  the  soldiers.  That  brought  to  my  mind  one  point,  and  that  was 
that  the  House  of  Representatives  went  on  record  a  year  ago  favoring 
some  appropriation  amounting  to  something  like  $250,000,000  for 
soldier  bonus.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  would  take  its  place  in  a  very 
substantial  manner,  and  vet  we  overlooked  stating  that  we  had  in  our 
delegation  Secretary  Fall,  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office,  former  Gov.  Spry,  when  we  called  on  the  President,  and  we  had 
a  very  fine  meeting,  indeed. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED  STATES.         21 

The  CHAIRMAN*.  And  they  are  in  sympathy — Secretary  Fall  and 
Gov.  Spry — in  full  sympathy  with  the  cause  you  governors  are  repre- 
senting here  ? 

Gov.  DAVIS.  Yes.  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN*.  It  will  soon  be  time  for  the  House  to  convene,  and 
if  there  is  nothing  further  the  committee  will  adjourn,  and  I  wish  to 
say  that  we  arc  very  grateful  to  the  governors  for  coming  here,  and  to* 
the  representatives  of  the  governors,  and  to  Mr.  Blaine,  for  the 
valuable  assistance  you  are  rendering  us  here  for  the  cause  in  behalf 
of  irrigation. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Mr.  Chairman,  there  are  several  witnesses  of  importance 
appearing  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Irrigation,  notably  the 
president  of  the  Northern  Pacific  Railroad,  and  I  think  we  should,  if 
possible,  adjust  the  time  of  the  hearings  here  so  as  to  accommodate 
those  witnesses  who  are  appearing  before  the  other  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN*.  The  chairman  of  the  committee  will  try,  if  possible, 
to  accommodate  those  witnesses,  with  the  assistance  which  I  assume 
we  will  have  from  the  members  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  I  think  it  will  be  very  important  to  have  him  before 
the  committee — the  president  of  the  Northern  Pacific. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  indeed. 

Mr.  SMITH.  At  the  next  meeting  I  wish  it  might  be  arranged  that 
Mr.  Blaine,  who  represents  the  Western  States  Reclamation  Asso- 
ciation here  might  discuss  the  details  of  the  bill  so  that  the  committee 
will  understand  it  more  fully. 

The  CHAIRMAN*.  Yes;  and  we  want  to  hear  Mr.  Blaine  very  soon. 

The  committee  now  stands  adjourned. 

(Whereupon,  at  11.45  O'clock,  the  committee  adjourned.) 


COMMITTEE  ox  IRRJGATIOX  OF  ARID  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Monday,  May  23,  1921. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  M.  P.  Kinkaid 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN*.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.  Gentlemen, 
this  meeting  was  called  expressly  to  hear  Mr.  Blaine,  representing 
the  governors'  organization  in  behalf  of  reclamation,  in  support  of 
H.  R.  2913,  introduced  by  Mr.  Smith,  and  we  will  hear  Mr.  Blaine 
now.  Mr.  Blaine.  will  you  give  the  reporter  your  name,  residence, 
and  whom  you  represent  here  ? 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  E.  F.  BLAINE,  SEATTLE,  WASH.,  OF  THE 
LEGISLATIVE  EDUCATIONAL  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WESTERN 
STATES  RECLAMATION  ASSOCIATION. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  am  down  here  as  a 
member  of  the  Legislative  Educational  Committee  of  the  Western 
States  Reclamation  Association.  The  Western  States  Reclamation 
Association  is  an  organization  something  like  two  years  old.  It  was 
formed  in  Salt  Lake  City,  and  at  the  meeting  at  which  it  was  formed 
there  were  present  from  various  Western  States  168  persons,  every 
one  of  the  Western  States  and  semiarid  States  being  represented. 


22         DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

The  form,  of  organization  effected  was  a  president,  secretary  and 
treasurer,  and  an  executive  committee  of  13,  the  executive  com- 
mittee consisting  of  one  person  from  each  of  the  13  States  interested 
in  this  movement.  At  Salt  Lake  City  I  was  present  to  represent  the 
State  of  Washington  as  a  member  of  the  executive  committee,  and 
I  am  still  functioning  in  that  capacity  as  well  as  being  one  of  the 
members  of  this  special  committee  on  legislation  and  education. 

Gov.  Spry,  now  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office',  came 
to  this  city  in  January,  and  we  have  been  here  since,  of  course  work- 
ing together  until  he  was  chosen  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office.  Since  then  I  have  been  working  in  conjunction  with  Mr. 
Brown,  the  secretary  of  the  organization.  We  have  had  something 
to  do  with  the  drafting  of  the  Smith-McXary  bill,  and  have  sought 
to  have  a  bill  presented  here  which  in  our  judgment  would  not  only 
work  for  this  year  and  next  year  and  for  a  few  years  and  then  cease, 
but  we  sought  a  plan  here  by  which  all  the  lands  of  the  West  sus- 
ceptible of  reclamation  can  be  reclaimed. 

This  bill  contemplates  cooperation  between  a  State  or  States,  the 
subdivision  or  subdivisions  of  a  State  or  States,  and  the  Federal 
Government  in  reclamation.  If  a  State  or  States  or  subdivision  or 
subdivisions  of  a  State  wish  to  cooperate  with  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment under  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  a  petition  is  addressed  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior,  setting  forth  what  is  desired.  The  first 
thing  that  is  presented  is  a  map  showing  a  district,  the  lands  to  be 
reclaimed,  and  there  is  also  presented  with  the  map  plans,  estimates 
and  a  description  of  the  project. 

Upon  receipt  of  such  a  petition  the  Secretary-  of  the  Interior 
makes  his  investigation,  and  if  he  finds  that  the  project  is  feasible, 
and  if  he  also  finds  that  the  lands  to  be  reclaimed  are  of  such  a 
character  as  ought  to  be  reclaimed,  and  if  reclaimed  there  will  be 
settlement  of  the  lands,  .and  if  he  further  finds  that  a  district  has 
been  organized  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which 
the  project  is  situated  and  that  it  has  power  to  enter  into  a  contract 
with  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  the  building  of  the  project,  has 
power  to  issue  bonds  to  pay  for  the  cost  of  the  project,  then  upon 
that,  and  further  if  he  shairfind  that  the  laws  of  the  State  authorize 
the  contract,  and  also  that  the  laws  of  the  State  authorize  a  levy  of 
assessment  to  pay  the  bonds,  and  further  authorizes  the  levying  of 
assessments  or  taxes  to  keep  the  project  a  going  concern  in  serving 
the  people  under  it;  if  he  further  finds  that  the  organization  of  the 
district  and  the  validity  of  the  bonds  have  been  passed  upon  by  a 
court  in  the  form  of  a  confirmation,  or  in  the  absence  of  that,  that 
such  time  has  elapsed  as  to  put  the  question  at  rest.;  also  that  the 
owners  of  the  excess  lands  shall  have  agreed  with  the  Secretary  to 
sell  their  excess  holdings  at  prices  and  terms  and  conditions  agreed 
upon,  then  he  may,  if  satisfied  with  these  things,  enter  into  a  contract 
to  build  the  project. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  What  do  you  mean  by  "excess  holdings,"  may  I 
ask? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  That  is  explained  further  on  in  the  bill,  Dr.  Summers, 
but  I  can  explain  it  now. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  That  is  the  same  as  is  provided  for  in  the  present 
reclamation  law? 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.        23 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes,  sir;  but  you  have  asked  the  question  and  I  can 
answer  it  now  as  well  as  at  any  other  time. 

It  has  always  been  the  policy  of  the  reclamation  service  not  to 
spend  the  Government's  money  in  reclaiming  too  large  an  acreage 
for  any  one  holder  of  land.  The  policy  of  the  Government  as  now 
announced  is  not  to  reclaim  for  any  one  man — to  put  up  the  money 
to  reclaim  for  any  one  man.an  amount  of  land  exceeding  160  acres,  but 
in  several  of  the  western  projects  the  farm  units  have  been  fixed  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  at  40  acres,  in  other  instances  60  and 
80.  So  before  the  Secretary  under  this  law  will  approve  a  project 
he  will  fix  a  maximum  farm  unit,  that  is,  the  amount  of  land  that 
any  one  person  can  own  and  have  it  reclaimed.  Now  if  anyone 
owns  more  land  than  that  within  a  district,  he  must  agree  to  sur- 
render the  excess  for  the  general  benefit  of  the  project,  and  the 
price  that  he  is  to  receive  for  that  land  and  the  terms  and  condi- 
tions of  the  sale  are  to  be  fixed  or  agreed  upon  by  the  Secretary  and 
the  landowner.  Now.  in  my  judgment,  this  is  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant provisions  in  this  bill.  I  have  had  considerable  experience  in 
the  reclamation  of  arid  lands  of  the  West.  I  have  been  engaged  in 
that  work  for  nearly  20  years;  I  am  practically  out  of  that  work  at 
the  present  time,  and  I  have  no  purpose  of  reentering  the  field. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  Does  that  mean,  Mr.  Blaine,  that  after  they 
come  within  the  project  and  reduce  their  projects  to  160  acres,  that 
they  are  not  thereafter  to  acquire  any  more  land  2 

Mr.  BLAINE.  They  can  acquire  by  purchase:  yi^. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  That  is,  they  can  extend  their  area  after  they 
have  come  into  the  project? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes,  if  they  can  buy  of  somebody  that  has  authority 
to  sell,  that  is  true.  There  is  nothing  in  this  law  to  prohibit  that,  or 
under  the  old  law  to  prohibit  that. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  There  is  a  certain  limitation  under  the  old  law  about 
buying  afterwards. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  After  the  title  has  fully  passed,  Mr.  Sinnott,  they 
can  sell  to  whoever  they  please,  and  in  years  to  come  under  any  of 
these  projects  a  man  might  acquire  a  great  deal  of  land  by  purchase. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact>  the  tendency  is  exactly  the 
other  way. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Very  much  so. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Regardless  of  the  law,  the  history  of  every  irrigation 
project  is  that  the  average  number  of  acres  owned  by  individual 
water  users  is  less  to-day  than  it  was  at  the  time  the  project  started. 
In  other  words,  to  successfully  carry  on  farming  under  irrigation 
conditions,  it  is  more  profitable  to  intensively  farm  a  small  -area  than 
to  attempt  to  cultivate  a  large  one. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  There  is  no  profit,  in  my  judgment,  in  seeking  to  farm 
too  large  an  area  of  reclaimed  lands  in  the  West. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  as  a  rule,  is  it  not  true  that  it  had  better  be 
cultivated  by  the  owner  than  by  any  other  person,  than  by  a  tenant, 
and  that  it  is  not  profitable  to  have  too  large  a  holding  I 

Mr.  BLAINE.  You  are  absolutely  right,  Mr.  Chairman.  In  the 
projects  in  which  I  have  been  interested  we  have  sold  considerable 
property  to  the  people  living  in  the  cities,  in  Seattle,  Tacoma,  who 
lived  across  the  mountain  from  the  Yakinia  Valley  and  the  Okanogan 
country,  but  those  people  to  whom  we  sold  land'  did  not  seem  to 


24         DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

make  a  success  of  it.  Farming  at  arms  length  is  an  impracticable 
matter  and  generally  results  in  disaster,  and  the  people  who  hav«? 
made  a  success  of  farming  irrigated  lands  in  the  State  of  Washington 
are  the  people  who  live  on  it  arid  own  it. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  I  understand,  Mr.  Blame,  that  if  a  man  owns 
practically  half  a  section — may  have  owned  it  for  years— under  this 
proposed  act,  he  would  he  required  to  reduce  down  to  the  minimum— 
that  is,  to  resell  his  land  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  To  agree  to  reduce  to  the  maximum  allowed. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Is  there  any  standard,  or  has  it  been  contem- 
plated upon  what  basis  the  Government  then  will  fix  the  price  I 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  was  just  going  to  read  that.  Of  course  it  is  my  own 
opinion,  and  this  law  is  to  be  administered  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  through  the  Reclamation  Service,  but  I  was  going  to  say  this, 
that  so  far  as  my  experience  goes  in  the  State  of  Washington  and  the 
Northwest,  where  substantial  areas  have  been  passed  on  to  the  pur- 
chasers or  settlers  at  reasonable  prices,  those  projects  have  succeeded; 
on  the  other  hand,  where  the  company  that  owned  the  land,  or  who- 
ever was  the  prior  owner,  had  passed  the  title  on  to  the  purchasers  or 
settlers  at  prices  considerably  more  than  the  land  was  worth,  seeking 
to  get  all  the  equity  possible  out  of  it,  those  projects  have  failed. 

Now,  if  we  are  going  to  succeed  under  this  bill  here,  in  my  opinion 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  ought  to  keep  the  price  of  this  sagebrush 
land  in  the  West  down,  because  in  my  judgment  the  value  is  added 
to  it  by  bringing  the  water  to  it. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Somewhere  near  the  basis  at  which  the  various 
States  are  selling  their  land,  raw  land. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Well,  each  project  will  probably  have  to  be  deter- 
mined by  itself.  There  are  a  great  many  factors  that  enter  into  it. 
Some  of  the  land  that  is  close  to  old  projects,  certain  old  projects,  close 
to  transportation,  and  so  forth,  will  have  a  value  much  higher  than 
land  lying  away  out  in  the  desert,  and  those  values  have  continued 
there  for  years,  but  still  there  is  what  we  call  a  "speculative  value." 
That  speculative  value  ought  to  be  eliminated,  so  that  when  the 
soldier  or  settler  goes  upon  land  and  the  water  comes  to  the  soil  and 
there  is  a  sudden  increase  in  price,  that  increment  should  go  to  the 
settlers,  and  if  it  does  go  there  they  will  all  have  the  courage  to  go 
ahead  and  function  and  make  a  splendid  community.  I  have  known 
instances  in  my  State  where  they  have  tried  to  sell  raw  land,  with  the 
water  rights,  for  two  to  three  hundred  dollars  an  acre,  and  those  cases 
have  been  failures. 

So,  in  the  administration  of  this  law,  if  it  is  going  to  work  I  think 
that  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  must  see  that  the  land  is  disposed  of 
at  a  reasonable  figure  to  settlers. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Wliat  number  is  that? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  That  is  under  section  2. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  let  me  ask  a  question  there,  Mr.  Blaine.  The 
purpose  of  that  clause,  the  subdivision,  is  to  prevent  having  the 
wnter  user  or  farmer  start  on  too  high  a  cost  basis? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes.  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  want  to  avoid  that  very  thing. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  to  start  on  a  cost  basis  which  is  too  high, 
which  would  mean  allowing  speculators  to  unload  this  land  on  to 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES.         25 

these  people  by  some  means  or  other  at  a  speculative  price,  it  would 
make  it  very  difficult — it  does  make  it  very  difficult  where  that 
occurs,  as  observation  has  shown,  for  the  farmer  or  water  user  to 
succeed  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  he  is  always  contending  with  the  obstacle. of 
having  commenced  on  a  high  cost  basis,  on  the  same  principle  as 
watered  stock  in  railways  and  other  corporations  being  required  to 
pay  a  dividend  on  a  high-cost  basis. 
Mr.  BLAINE.  That  is  right. 
The  CHAIRMAN.  A  fictitious  basis. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  I  think  that  fact  ought  to  be  deter- 
mined; the  price  should  be  agreed  upon,  the  terms  and  conditions 
agreed  upon,  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  district,  the  entering 
into  a  contract  with  the  Secretary  and  not  leave  the  price  open  to 
the  owner  so  that  he  may  get  as  big  a  price  as  he  can. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  my  understanding  that  is  the  case  under  the 
present  reclamation  law,  and  my  attention  has  just  been  brought  to 
one  case  in  which  the  value  of  the  lands  has  risen  ver}^  greatly  since 
the  agreement  was  made,  since  the  owners  of  the  private  lands 
signed  up  their  contracts  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 
Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes:  it  is. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Has  that  contract  been  passed  upon  by  the  courts  ? 
Mr.  BLAINE.  It  has  not  been  passed  upon  by  the  courts. 
Mr.  HAYDEN.  It  is  very  important  in  carrying  out  the  terms  of 
this  provision  that   an   iron-clad   contract   between  the  landowner 
and  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  be  entered  into  so  that  there  can 
be  no  possible  ground  for  dispute  or  misconstruction.     They  must 
agree  on  a  price  that  the  landowner  shall  get,  and  he  must  agree  to 
deliver  a  deed  whenever  he  obtains  his  price,  and  everything  in  the 
way  of  increased  value  of  the  land  should  go  to  the  settler. 
Mr.  BLAINE.  I  agree  with  that  thoroughly. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Otherwise,  you  take  away  the  incentive  to  the 
settlers  and  to  home  building.  We  will  have  to  make  this  proposi- 
tion very  plain,  as  one  of  the  fundamentals  of  the  bill,  that  that  be 
done,  and  that  it  will  make  it  a  genuine  home-building  bill. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  And  that  is  very  necessary  when  we  are  trying  to  do 
something  under  this  bill  for  the  ex-service  men. 
The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  Wouldn't  it  be  better  to  ask  the  Government  to 
take  over  these  excess  lands  at  the  time  the  project  is  organized,  and 
then  sell  it  directly  to  the  proposed  settlers,  in  place  of  leaving  it  to 
be  purchased  from  the  original  owners? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Well,  that  would  take  more  money,  and  there  has 
been  no  great  difficulty,  so  far  as  I  know,  in  the  settler  buying  of  the 
original  owner  and  paying  him  for  it,  where  the  Reclamation  Service 
has  had  an  understanding  with  the  owners  of  excess  land. 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  the  owner  is  required  to  enter  into  an  agreement 
before  the  project  is  started,  there  would  really  be  on  occasion  for  the 
Government  putting  up  any  money  to  get  control  of  the  land. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  There  would  be  very  great  opposition  on  the  floor 
to  the  Government  buying  these  lands,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  if 
this  bill  does  not,  it  should  definitely  state  the  size  of  the  unit,  and  that 
it  should  definitely  determine  the  fact  that  the  price  must  be  fixed 
before  the  Government  ever  enters  into  the  project. 


26         DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  Of  course  there  are  quite  a  number  of  objections  that 
could  be  raised  against  the  placing  of  a  limit  on  the  acreage  to  star 
with  in  this  bill,  for  this  reason,  that  in  certain  sections  of  the  West 
it  is  strictly  alfalfa  land.  Xow.  a  man  can  not  make  a  success,  in 
some  sections  of  the  country,  on  80  acres  of  alfalfa.  In  other  words, 
he  has  to  have  pasture;  he  has  to  have  a  small  acreage  for  potatoes, 
and  he  has  to  have  a  certain  amount  also  of  alfalfa,  but  in  other 
sections  of  the  country— you  take  it  down  in  the  Salt  River  Valley, 
in  the  Imperial  Valley,  in  the  Palo  Verde  Valley,  on  the  Colorado 
River  in  Riverside  County,  California,  and  you  have  a  condition 
down  there  where  you  have  varied  crops;  you  have  melons,  cotton, 
seeds  of  all  sorts,  and  where  40  acres  would  do  in  one  place  it  might 
require  160  acres  in  another  place. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  That  is  provided  for  in  section  13,  that  the  maxi- 
mum area  shall  not  exceed  160  acres. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  I  would  say  that  that  was  fair,  160  acres. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  But  of  course  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  may 
reduce  it  even  below  40  acres.  I  might  say  to  you  that  in  the  State 
of  Washington,  under  the  Sunnyside  Canal,  the  average  size  of  the 
farms  is  22  acres,  and  they  are  going  down,  not  going  up  in  size. 
There  is,  for  example,  in  my  State  over  in  Dr.  Summers's  district, 
one  of  the  greatest  wheat  counties  in  the  world,  and  they  tell  me 
that  the  size  of  the  farms  there  is  now  approximately  300  acres, 
against  22  acres  in  the  Yakima  Valley  under  irrigation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  smaller  the  farms  are 
made  the  better  the  yield  per  acre  '( 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Much  better.  It  means  intensive  cultivation.  I 
have  traveled  in  Egypt,  I  have  traveled  in  China  and  Japan,  and  in 
Egypt  they  have  something  like  5,000,000  acres  of  cultivated  land 
supporting  a  population  pretty  close  to  13,000,000  people,  and  I 
think  it  is  every  two  acres  that  has  some  sort  of  an  animal  upon  it 
other  than  a  human  being. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all  due  to  intensive  farming. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  It  is  very  intensive.  In  China  and  Japan  it  is  the 
same  way.  There  they  have  intensive  cultivation. 

The  CHAIRMAN*.  It  has  been  suggested  that  we  permit  Mr.  Blaine 
now  to  finish  his  statement  and  men  ask  him  questions,  if  we  have 
time,  afterwards. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Are  you  taking  the  bill  by  sections  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes,  I  was  starting  with  section  1.  Now  section  3 
has  already  been  covered. 

In  section  4  it  is  provided  that  the  bonds  to  be  issued  shall  be 
ample  in  amount  to  cover  the  estimated  cost  of  the  project,  and  that 
amount  may  include,  in  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior, the  interest  that  would  accrue  during  the  period  of  construc- 
tion. I  am  inclined  to  think  that  that  is  a  very  wise  provision, 
because  we  of  the  West  realize  that  the  trying  time  in  reclamation 
is  when  the  farmer  first  goes  on  his  land,  the  first  few  first  years  of 
his  efforts.  That  land  has  nothing  upon  it  but  sagebrush  and  a 
little  bunch  of  grass.  It  will  produce  very  little  if  any  grain.  The 
farmer  goes  into  the  desert  and  he  builds  from  the  sagebrush  roots 
up,  and  he  must  have  all  the  money  he  can  get  hold  of  in  order  to 
carry  him  through  until  he  has  got  a  productive  farm.  Xow,  just 
as  soon  as  those  farms  commence  producing,  they  produce  so  a  bun- 


DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES.         27 

dantly  that  the  farmer  from  that  time  on  thrives,  and  what  he  is 
able  to  do  thereafter  is  well  known  to  the  western  prople.  So  dur- 
ing this  period  of  construction  the  bond  interest  should  be  capital- 
ized, and  under  this  bill  it  can  be  capitalized.  There  is  a  provision 
in  here  for  adding  2  per  cent  to  the  estimated  cost  of  the  project 
for  commission  on  the  sale  of  the  bonds. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  There  is  just  this,  Mr.  Elaine:  You  say,  "The 
balance  of  the  2  per  cent,  if  ^ny,  to  be  placed  to  the  credit  of  the 
reclamation  fund."  Do  you  mean  in  that  particular  district?  You 
mean  the  local  reclamation  fund,  do  you  not  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  No,  I  do  not.  I  mean  that  there  are  big  districts 
and  little  districts,  and  in  some  cases  it  will  take  more  than  2  per 
cent  to  effect  a  favorable  sale  of  bonds;  in  another  district  it  might 
take  less  than  2  per  cent.  So  I  think  2  per  cent  on  all  the  bond 
issues  would  create  a  sufficient  fund  that  we  would  have  a  very 
favorable  sale  of  the  bonds  of  these  districts. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Your  idea  is  that  this  should  be  cooperative  with 
all  of  these  new  districts  I 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  But  when  you  put  it  into  the  reclamation  fund, 
then  wouldn't  it  go  also  to  the  old  districts  as  well  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  No,  it  would  be  in  the  new  districts,  the  new  enter- 
prises. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  But  when  you  put  it  into  the  reclamation  fund,  how 
would  you  limit  it  to  new  districts  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Well,  in  a  sense  the  money  might  be  used  in  old 
districts  but  I  doubt  whether  it  would  go  that  way. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  think  it  ought  to  be  specific  as  to  where  it  is 
to  go. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Well,  it  is  to  go  to  the  credit  of  the  reclamation  fund. 
Of  course  it  can  be  used,  and  we  suppose  it  is  going  to  be  used,  in 
other  projects;  and  2  per  cent,  as  I  say,  may  be  a  little  large  in  some 
instances  and  not  large  in  other  instances,  and  so  I  think  the  per 
<;ent  should  be  fixed  and  not  leave  that  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Inte- 
rior. If  there  is  any  surplus  left  in  the  reclamation  fund  it  will  help 
out  on  other  projects. 

These  bonds  of  the  district  are  not  turned  over  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior,  but  they  are  turned  over  to  the  Federal  Farm  Loan 
Board  to  be  held  by  that  board. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  Have  you  consulted  with  the  Federal  Farm  Loan 
Board  to  ascertain  whether  they  are  willing  to  perform  the  duty 
imposed  by  this  section  I 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  No,  I  didn't  think  that  was  necessary,  because  they 
are  a  creature  of  legislation  and  if  the  burden  is  conferred  upon  them 
they  must  perform  the  duties. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  But  it  is  customary,  nevertheless,  where  legislation 
is  enacted  affecting  the  powers  or  duties  of  any  branch  of  the  Govern- 
ment, that  the  department  or  bureau  be  consulted  before  the  law  is 
passed. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  may  say,  though,  at  the  last  session  of  Congress  when 
we  had  similar  legislation  up,  we  had  a  conference  with  Mr.  Lever 
of  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board,  who  was  very  deeply  interested  in 
the  legislation,  and  he  indicated  that  he  was  perfectly  willing  to 
come  before  the  committee  and  discuss  the  measure. 


28         DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX    THE    UNITED   STATES. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  The  way  to  ascertain  that  is.  first,  to  have  this  bill 
referred  to  the  Federal  Farm  Laon  Board  formally  by  the  chairman 
of  the  committee  for  report;  and  second,  to  have  some  one  authorized 
to  speak  for  the  board  to  appear  before  this  committee  and  express 
their  views  on  the  measure. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  judge  now  that  you  want 'to  find  out  from  them 
whether  in  their  opinion  this  is  workable  ( 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  Exactly. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Well,  yes:  in  that  sense  they  ought  to  be  conferred 
with,  but  I  caught  your  question  in  the  other  form.  But  as  far  as 
conferring  with  them  to  see  whether  this  is  a  workable  provision,  I 
heartily  agree  with  you. 

The  CHAIRMAN-.  VVell.  we  will  have  plenty  of  time  to  confer  with 
them  and  give  them  a  hearing. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Now  this  bill  further  provides  that  in  case — — - 

Mr.  SIXNOTT  (interposing).  What  section  are  you  on  I 

Mr.  BLAJNE.  I  am  down  now  in  the  latter  part  of  section  4.  page  4. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Before  you  leave  what  you  were  talking  about,  I 
want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  language  in  section  4,  lines  14  and 
15,  ''and  the  project  and  contract  or  contracts  shall  have  been  exe- 
cuted by  the  parties,  the  district  or  districts  shall,  pursuant  to  such 
contract  or  contracts,  deposit  the  bonds  with  the  Federal  Farm  Loan 
Board,"  and  so  forth.  Who  are  those  parties  referred  to,  and  what 
is  the  contract  or  contracts  referred  to  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Well,  you  see.  he  may  have  a  project  where  it  extends 
into  two  States,  so  that  there  might  be  two  contracts  as  to  that  one 
project.  Districts  might  be  parts  of  two  States,  subdivisions  of  two 
States. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  Does  your  word  "parties"  embrace  districts  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Parties  means  districts:  yes.  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  ought  to  be  made  clear,  because  this  section 
4 — what  has  gone  before — it  presupposes  a  contract  already  entered 
into  by  the  Secretary,  and  I  wondered  why  you  repeat  that  and  what 
that  ''  contract "  referred  to  ?  There  seems  to  be  sort  of  a  gap  or 
hiatus  in  there,  so  some  ambiguity  that  I  don't  just  understand. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Well,  it  goes  back  to  the  contracts — - 

Mr.  SIXXOTT  (interposing).  It  says  in  the  first  of  the  section."  That 
when  the  district  shall  have  authorized  the  issuance  of  bonds  to  be 
approved  by  the  Secretary.''  and  so  on,  and  before  it  presupposes  the 
contract  having  been  entered  into:  then  you  seem  to  run  into  another 
contract  down  here  that  I  don't  understand. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  There  may  be  some  unnecessary  language  in  there. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  line  is  that  '( 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  That  is  lines  14  and  15. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  The  same  is  true  about  the  term  ''  project"  in  line  15, 
"  and  the  project  shall  have  been  executed  by  the  parties."  It  is  not 
clear  as  to  what  that  term  means. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  say  '*  contract  or  contracts  shall  have  been  exe- 
cuted by  the  parties."  You  use  the  word  here,  Mr.  Elaine,  as  a 
minor  subdivision;  then  you  seem  to  jump  to  a  district:  then  you 
seem  to  jump  to  a  project.  It  seems  to  me  that  ought  to  be  cleared 
up.  Of  course  I  know,  colloquially  speaking,  what  you  mean  by  a 
''subdivision"  or  "minor  subdivision"  of  a  State,  but  I  don't  know 
whether  that  is  a  legal  term  of  not.  Of  course,  we  all  know  what  an 


DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UXITED  STATES.        29 

irrigation  district  is,  and  wherever  you  use  the  word  "  district "  in 
this  bill  I  assume  you  mean  an  irrigation  district  I 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  An  irrigation  district,  yes. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  It  ought  to  be  changed  to  that,  and  we  ought  to  avoid 
any  ambiguity,  such  as  a  phrase  "minor  subdivision." 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  suppose  vou  will  have  an  executive  session  of  the 
committee  that  will  take  that  up. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  I  did  not  know  but  what  you  had  some  particular 
object  in  using  that  phraseology. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Xo;  I  think  it  is  just  an  unnecessary  use  of  the  term; 
in  fact,  there  has  been  some  repetition  here. 

The  CHAIKMAX.  I  think  it  needs  some  clearing  up,  but  as  Mr. 
Elaine  suggests,  we  can  take  that  up  in  executive  session. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  I  just  wanted  to  get  his  ideas  as  we  go  along,  because 
he  may  have  had  something  in  mind  that  we  don't  grasp. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes;  but  what  was  in  my  mind  all  the  way  through 
here  in  every  instance  was  that  it  is  going  to  be  an  irrigation  district. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  suggest,  there  is  a  meeting,  I  understand, 
of  the  Public  Lands  Committee  to-morrow,  Mr.  Sinnott? 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  we  want  to  afford  Mr.  Blame  an  opportunity 
to  go  over  this  whole  bill  this  morning.  We  may  have  to  call  him 
again,  and  we  can  not  tell  him  how  often,  but  I  think  we  should  get 
over  it  in  a  general  way  this  morning,  and  I  just  suggest,  Mr.  Blaine, 
that  you  so  gauge  yourself  on  these  different  sections  that  you  can 
cover  this  by  noon. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes:  I  think  I  can  do  that. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  I  had  some  questions  that  I  wanted  to  ask  him  on 
the  various  sections  as  he  came  to  them. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  I  think  it  is  important,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  as  we  go 
along  we  clear  up  any  ambiguity  that  may  exist,  so  that  we  can  begin 
where  we  left  off  when  the  next' hearing  is  held. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Xow  the  bill  shows  that  the  Secretary  shall  call  for 
bonds  in  ample  amounts  to  cover  the  estimated  cost  of  the  project. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Are  you  on  section  4  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  am'  still  in  the  latter  portion  of  section  4,  page  4, 
where  on  the  completion  of  projects,  if  there  is  found  to  be  an  excess 
of  bonds  issued,  the  bonds  in  excess  of  the  bonds  necessary  to  cover 
the  projects  are  to  be  turned  back  or  to  be  canceled,  and  in  case  of  a 
deficiency  the  district  may  be  called  upon  to  issue  additional  bonds, 
or,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  the  deficiencies 
shall  be  made  up  by  an  extra  assessment  upon  the  project. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Right  there — "at  the  option  of  the  Secretary,  be 
added  to  the  tax  or  assessment  roll." 

Xow.  the  question  occurs  to  me  whether  there  is  a  complementary 
statute  in  most  States  that  will  make  that  workable,  because  you 
give  the  Secretary  the  option  to  have  that  added  to  the  tax  or  assess- 
ment roll,  and  I  wonder  if  the  State  taxes  are  broad  enough  to  permit 
that. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  am  satisfied,  Mr.  Sinnott,  that  under  the  provisions 
of  this  bill  some  of  the  States  will  have  to  modify  their  present  recla- 
mation district  laws,  because  in  several  of  the  States  the  general 
power  of  taxation  is  not  yet  vested  in  irrigation  districts.  In  my 
State  it  is  an  open  question.  It  has  not  been  passed  upon  by  the 


30        DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

supreme  court.  But  if  this  bill  goes  through  and  becomes  a  law.  I 
am  inclined  to  think  the  supreme  court  of  my  State  will  hold  that 
the  irrigation  districts  have  the  general  power  of  taxation,  because 
the  State  interest  would  be  back  of  such  a  decision.  Xow.  in  some 
States  I  doubt  whether  you  have  any  broad,  comprehensive  district 
laws  that  will  cover  that. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  I  think  in  most  of  the  Western  States  they  have 
pretty  broad  laws  contemplating  cooperation  with  the  National  Gov- 
ernment, but  I  didn't  know  whether  the  laws  were  broad  enough  to 
embrace  this  option  that  is  vested  in  the  Secretary. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  If  not,  we  will  have  to  amend  our  State  laws  to  con- 
form with  it,  unless  you  wish  to  cut  that  clause  out  and  say  it  shall 
be  covered  by  additional  bond  issues. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  I  didn't  know  whether  you  had  in  mind  some  State 
statutes  and  how  far  they  have  gone  along  that  line. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  No;  but  I  am  laboring  under  the  impression  that  in 
pretty  nearly  every  one  of  our  States  we  will  have  to  have  some  addi- 
tional legislation,  or  if  not  additional  legislation,  we  will  have  to  have 
friendly  interpretation  of  the  existing  laws  by  our  courts. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  know  some  States — Western  States — have  in 
their  constitutions  a  restriction  that  no  law  shall  be  passed  the  taking 
effect  of  which  shall  be  made  to  depend  upon  any  authority  except 
as  provided  in  the  constitution  of  the  State. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Will  you  repeat  that  ( 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  say  that  some  States  have  a  constitutional  restric- 
tion that  no  law  shall  be  passed  the  taking  effect  of  which  shall  be 
made  to  depend  upon  any  authority  except  as  provided  in  the  State 
constitution. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  That  is,  the  legislature  could  not  delegate  to  a  muni- 
cipal corporation,  such  as  an  irrigation  district,  the  power  to  tax  * 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  No:  to  delegate  to  any  authority,  except  as  pro- 
vided in  the  State  constitution,  to  say  when  the  law  shall  take  effect. 

Mr.  STMMERS.  That  is  in  the  constitutions,  you  say  '( 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Why  wouldn't  it  be  simpler,  to  save  time,  to 
cover  the  deficiency  by  bonds  than  it  would  be  to  try  to  get  seven  or 
eight  States  to  straighten  out  their  State  lav. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  It  reads  that  no  act  shall  be  passed  the  taking  effect 
of  which  shall  be  made  to  depend  on  any  other  body,  either  inside 
or  outside  the  State,  except  as  provided  in  the  State  constitution. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  That  is  against  the  delegation  of  legislative  power. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  That  is  in  the  constitution  of  Texas. 

Mi-.  LITTLE.  Does  that  mean  that  if  the  State  made  a  law,  nobody 
outside  of  that  State  could  make  a  law  controlling  that  subject  '. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  No;  I  am  not  clear  just  how  far  it  goes,  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  wording  of  that  constitutional  restriction  might 
place  some  embarrassment  upon  the  Secretary  in  adding  this  to  the 
tax  roll. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Where  is  that  constitution  in  force  \ 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  In  Oregon;  and  I  think  possibly  in  the  State  of 
Washington,  too. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  The  State  of  Washington's  constitution  can  not 
govern  any  other  State's  laws. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED   STATES.         31 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Oh,  no;  but  then  there  would  probably  be  land  in 
Oregon  that  would  probably  want  to  come  under  the  provisions  of 
this  bill. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  If  the  power  didn't  exist  to  add  it  to  the  tax  roll, 
then  it  would  have  to  issue  bonds. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Well,  you  could  make  that  alternative,  but  here  the 
option  is  in  the  Secretary.  You  could  make  it  alternative  instead  of 
optional. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes.  Now,  section  5  is  only  as  to  the  denomination 
of  the  bonds. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  You  think  that  bond  interest  is  high  enough,  not 
exceeding  5  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes:  I  think  that  interest  is  high  enough.  Under 
this  bill  a  total  of  §250,000,000  will  be  appropriated— 820,000,000  the 
first  year,  835,000,000  the  second  year.  845,000,000  the  third  year, 
and  850,000,000  each  year  thereafter  till  the  total  8250,000,000  has 
been  used— and  we  will  be  some  time  spending  the  $250,000.000. 
Xow.  it  is  probable  that  it  will  be  four  or  five  years  before  there  will 
be  any  sale  of  these  district  bonds,  before  the  projects  are  completed, 
and  I  am  of  the  opinion — and  I  think  it  is  the  consensus  of  opinion 
in  the  United  States — that  interest  within  the  next  five  years  will 
drop. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  But  most  of  the  bonds  in  irrigation  districts  have 
been  sold  at  6  per  cent  in  the  past  and  at  a  great  discount. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Very  true;  but  in  that  instance,  Mr.  Sinnott,  the 
security  had  not  been  created.  Money  was  loaned  to  create  a  secur- 
ity: in  this  instance,  before  these  bonds  are  sold,  the  property  within 
the  district  must  have  twice  the  value  of  the  outstanding  bonds. 
So,  I  believe  that  as  between  a  security  in  existence  and  one  that  is 
to  be  created  by  the  money  loaned,  that  1  per  cent  difference  in  the 
rate  of  interest  would  be  reasonable.  That  is  only  a  matter  of  judg- 
ment, and  that  is  my  judgment. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  is  important  to  keep  the  interest  as  low  as  possible* 
in  order  not  to  burden  the  settler  too  much. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes:  you  must  not  burden  him  too  much. 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  must  offer  every  encouragement  to  the  man  to  go 
on  the  land. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  It  is  possible  State  pride  might  enter  in,  in  helping 
to  dispose  of  bonds  that  would  mean  development  within  certain 
States. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  That  is  true;  and  we  have  allowed  2  per  cent  on  sales. 
It  costs  money  to  sell  bonds.  That  is  provided  for  in  this  bill.  So 
that  really  adds  to  the  rate  of  interest. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  It  would  make  the  rate  of  interest  7  per  cent,  then  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Xo;  it  is  only  2  per  cent  on  the  gross  amount.  The 
interest  runs  throughout  the  years,  and  this  is  calculated  on  the 
gross  amount. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  It  would  be  7  per  cent  the  first  year. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes;  if  you  want  to  calculate  it  that  way. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  What  do  you  think  of  semiannual  interest  ?  A  num- 
ber of  districts  issue  bonds  with  interest  payable  semiannually. 


32         DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  My  experience  in  collecting  money  on  contract*  in 
the  State  of  Washington  is  that  they  always  want  to  put  off  their 
payments  until  they  have  sold  their  crops. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  think  it  is  best  to  have  it  coincident  with  the 
sale  of  crops  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  would;  if  I  were  regulating  the  bonds  I  would  have 
the  interest  payable  after  the  crops  are  marketed,  a  certain  time  in 
December — the  latter  part  of  December  or  the  1st  of  January. 

Section  6  is  in  regard  to  the  sale  of  bonds.  When  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  is  satisfied  that  the  property  has  twice  the  value  oAhe 
then  outstanding  bonds,  he  requests  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board 
to  make  an  investigation  to  determine  that  fact,  and  if  the  Federal 
Farm  Loan  Board  upon  such  investigation  finds  that  the  property 
within  the  district  has  twice  the  value  of  the  outstanding  bonds, 
then  the  bonds  are  to  be  sold  in  the  open  market  and  the  proceeds 
of  those  bonds  are  to  go  into  the  reclamation  fund  to  be  used  over 
again.  This  bill  is  quite  different  from  other  bills  in  this  regard, 
most  all  of  the  other  bills  that  have  been  drawn,  so  far  as  I  have 
observed  them,  have  a  provision  for  the  sale  of  the  bonds,  the  money 
to  go  back  into  the  General  Treasury,  but  here  we  provide  for  this 
money  to  go  into  the  reclamation  fund  to  be  used  over  again. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  other  words,  you  wrant  to  preserve  the  reclama- 
tion fund  intact  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  the  money  that  is  used  for  reclamation — 
keep  it  in  a  revolving  fund  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes.  In  other  words,  we  are  asking  the  Government 
to  help  the  reclamation  in  the  West  with  a  capital  sum  of  8250,000,000; 
leave  that  capital  sum  for  20  years  before  it  asks  any  of  it  back. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  wish  that  to  supplement  the  present  relama- 
tion  fund  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  to  become  commingled  with  it,  and  old 
projects  as  they  pay  into  the  fund:  it  all  goes  together  in  a  ir.; 

Mr.  BLAINE.'     Yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Have  you  made  any  provision  in  the  bill  for  using 
the  proceeds  of  these  bonds  that  have  been  turned  into  the  reclama- 
tion fund  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  It  tm  at  the  end  of  that  section — ''to  be  used  on 
further  projects."  It  is  to  go  into  that  fund,  and  if  it  goes  into  that 
fund,  of  course  the  fund  can  be  used.  There  is  provision  in  regard  to 
paying  back  the  money  to  the  Federal  Treasury  commencing  in  1942. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  But  you  do  not  in  this  bill  make  any  provision  for 
the  reuse  of  the  proceeds  of  the  bond  sales  that  have  gone  into  the 
reclamation  fund,  do  you  ( 

Mr.  SMITH.  In  lines' 21.  22,  and  23  it  provides  that  it  shall  go  into 
the  fund,  and  it  would  be  apportioned  under  the  general  law. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  is  what  I  had  in  mind,  whether  you  were 
relying  upon  the  general  law  to  use  this  fund  over  again  under  the 
general  law.  or  whether  you  make  a  specific  provision  in  the  bill. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Well.  I  have  been  laboring  under  this  impression, 
that  directing  it  to  be  covered  into  the  reclamation  fund,  it  can  be 
used  when  covered  into  that  fund  unless  there  is  a  limitation  upon  it. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Then  you  are  depending  upon  the  general  law  lor  the 
use  of  that  money  ? 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGEICULTUEE  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES.         33 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes,  upon  the  general  law.  I  may  be  wrong  in  regard 
to  that,  but  that  is  my  idea. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  The  question  occurred  to  me  whether  it  was  necessary 
to  have  a  specific  provision  here. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  If  you  would  add  a  word  of  that  kind,  it  would  not  be 
amiss. 

Now,  prior  to  the  sale  of  these  bonds  the  interest  will  accumulate, 
and  whether  paid  or  whether  capitalized,  that  interest  of  course  will 
belong  to  the  Government,  but  that  interest  will  go  into  the  reclama- 
tion fund  to  swell  the  reclamation  fund. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  say  here,  "  Prior  to  the  sale  of  bonds  the  board 
shall  collect  all  maturing  principal  and  interest."  That  is  not 
exactly  clear  to  me.  Is  a  district  to  pay  the  interest  on  the  bonds 
during  construction  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes,  the  district.  There  might  be  a  case  where  you 
would  capitalize  the  interest  during  the  course  of  construction. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  do  you  mean  by  "capitalize  the  interest?" 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Add  it  to  the  cost  of  the  project. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  But  this  says  that  they  shall  "collect  all  maturing 
principal  and  interest." 

Now,  I  take  that  to  mean,  and  all  interest  on  the  bonds  that  have 
been  put  up  to  the  Federal  Board,  that  will  not  be  sold  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  events  for  five  years. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  But  there  will  be  an  annual  interest  on  them  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes;  might  be. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Well,  there  probably  will  be,  won't  there  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  If  it  is  capitalized  during  the  course  of  construction? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  are  you  going  to  get  around  that  annual 
interest  '( 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Well,  if  it  is  added  to  the  principal,  then  there  will 
be  no  collection  of  interest  during  the  course  of  construction,  but 
these  bonds  might  be  held  after  the  period  of  construction. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  Section  5  provides  for  annual  interest.  I  was 
wondering  how  these  two  provisions  harmonized. 

Mr.  SMITH.  There  would  be  no  interest  paid  until  after  the  bonds 
are  sold,  as  the  interest  due  prior  to  that  time  would  be  added  to 
the  original  cost. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  There  would  be  interest  maturing  each  year. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes;  it  is  capitalized  during  the  period  of  construc- 
tion; now  your  construction  is  finished;  your  interest  then  is  running, 
and  it  should  be  paid  annually  by  the  district  to  the  Federal  Farm 
Loan  Boards,  and  they  should  account  for  it. 

Mr.  AREXTZ.  Up  in  your  own  district,  Mr.  Smith,  the  project 
when  completed — in  other  words,  when  the  dam  was  completed  and 
the  water  stored  there  were  people  close  in  on  the  best  land  that  was 
then  in  cultivation,  but  the  project  necessarily  was  not  worth  twice 
the  value  of  the  bonds.  Now,  all  those  people  who  had  their  lands 
under  cultivation  and  were  using  water  up  to  the  time  the  value  of 
the  land  was  twice  the  value  of  the  bonds  would  have  to  pay  interest, 
so  there  may  be  a  thousand  or  more  who  are  paying  interest  for 
two  or  three  or  four  years  up  to  the  time  the  value  of  the  land  was 
twice  the  value  of  the  bonds,  and  that  would  be  paid  into  the  recla- 
56664—21 3 


34         DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

mation  fund.  Now,  suppose  that  investigation  and  report  to  the 
Secretary  does  not  disclose  that  the  land  is  worth  twice  the  amount 
of  the  bonds,  what  becomes  of  the  bonds,  are  they  still  held  as  the 
property  of  the  Government  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  bonds  are  not  offered  for  sale. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Yes:  they  are  the  property  of  the  Government.  The 
Government  takes  the  bonds  in  payment  for  the  work,  and  the  Gov- 
ernment owns  the  bonds,  and  this  sale  here  is  a  sale  of  Government 
bonds — I  mean  of  Government-owned  bonds. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  I  am  afraid  we  might  be  subject  to  a  little  criticism, 
and  I  just  want  to  develop  this  idea.  Now,  unless  the  board  finds  the 
land  is  worth  double  the  value  of  the  bonds,  the  Government  will  be 
holding  the  bonds  and  holding  the  sack.  Is  that  right  ?  Is  that 
criticism  valid  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  will  be  collecting  the  interest. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  You  would  be  collecting  the  annual  interest.  The 
annual  interest  would  be  paid  to  the  Government  by  the  district . 

Mr.  LITTLE.  How  long  will  the  interest  be  paid  out  of  these  bonds  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  During  the  period  of  construction. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  For  how  long  will  they  pay  the  interest  out  of  the  bond 
capital  > 

Mr.  ELAINE.  During  the  period  of  construction. 

Mr.  SMITH.  About  three  years  generally. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  any  other  transaction  in  which 
they  paid  the  interest  on  the  bonds  out  of  the  sale  of  the  bonds  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SMITH.  They  are  not  paying  it  out  of  the  sale  of  bonds;  they 
figure  up  the  interest  that  would  be  due  during  the  period  of  con- 
struction and  add  it  to  the  original  cost. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  They  pay  the  interest  on  the  bonds  from  the  proceeds 
of  the  sale  of  the  bonds. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  No. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Oh,  yes;  they  do.  That  is  what  it  amounts  to.  The 
interest  on  these  bonds  is  estimated  to  be  paid  out  of  the  proceeds  of 
the  sale  of  the  bonds.  Don't  you  think  there  would  be  some  criticism 
of  that  ?  Irrigation  is  not  popular  in  the  House,  and  some  fellow  will 
be  sure  to  get  up  and  make  that  statement,  and  how  are  you  going 
to  answer  it  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Well,  there  are  loans  made  on  private  enterprises 
where  the  interest  during  the  period  of  construction  is  capitalized. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Where  ?     Name  them. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  yVe\\,  there  are  building  loans  of  that  character. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Where  (     Name  one  of  them. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  don't  know  as  I  could  name  one  of  them  now. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Well,  if  I  were  defending  this  proposition  I  would  want 
you  to  supply  me  with  some  such  incidents.  If  some  one  asked  that 
question  I  would  like  to  be  fixed  to  answer  it. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  can  get  you  that  information,  Judge  Little,  in  a  very 
definite  form. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  I  wish  you  would;  something  that  will  enable  us  to 
protect  you  on  the  floor. 

What  does  this  mean  I  It  says  when  the  validity  of  such  bond 
issues  shall  be  confirmed  or  shall  be  acceptable  to  the  Secretary. 
Confirmed  by  whom  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Confirmed  bv  the  courts. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED   STATES.         35 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Most  State  laws,  Col.  Little,  have  a  provision  for  the 
confirmation  of  irrigation  district  bonds, 

Mr.  LITTLE.  How  do  we  know  that  that  is  what  that  means  ?  Page 
4  says:  ''When  the  validity  of  such  bond  issue  shall  have  been 
confirmed  or  shall  be  acceptable  to  the  Secretary."  If  that  means 
by  some  local  court,  and  if  the  decision  of  the  court  would  have  to  be 
confirmed  on  appeal  to  the  State  supreme  court,  hadn't  you  better 
put  a  sentence  in  there  covering  that  ( 

Mr.  BLAINE.  If  I  may  read  a  section  from  page  3: 

That  the  validity  of  the  organization  of  the  district  and  of  the  bonds  through  a 
confrmation  by  the  court  has  been  determined,  or  the  time  limit  in  which  the 
validity  of  such  aistrict  and  bonds  can  be  assailed  has  expired. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  How  long  is  that  in  one  State  and  how  long  is  it  in 
another  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  It  is  fixed  by  State  statute. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Each  State  fixes  it?  I  don't  think  you  are  very  clear 
in  your  statement.  If  a  person  reading  that  didn't  know  anything 
about  it,  any  more  than  I  did  when  I  came  in,  it  wouldn't  mean  any- 
thing to  him.  I  think  in  3  and  4  you  ought  to  have  a  little  arrange- 
ment there  that  simply  says  in  effect  that  when  the  thing  has  been 
confirmed  by  the  court  under  the  laws  of  the  respective  States — 
some  phrase'like  that. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  I  see.     Have  you  drainage  laws  in  your  State  ? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Yes. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Haven't  you  got  a  provision  of  that  kind  in  your 
drainage  district  law  ? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  I  don't  think  so.     No. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  A  provision  confirming  the  bonds  if  no  objection  is 
raised  within  a  certain  time  ?     That  provision  is  found  in  a  great  • 
many  drainage  laws. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Not  in  purs. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  It  is  valid  in  my  State,  Mr.  Elaine,  when  the 
attorney  general  approves  the  bonds.  That  is  the  law  there. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  The  legality  is  not  susceptible  of  attack  after 
that? 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  No,  sir;  not  after  the  attorney  general  of  the 
State  approves  the  bonds.  I  suppose  that  would  mean  a  confirma- 
tion under  this  law. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Probably,  although  this  says,  "By  the  court"  in 
here. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  I  should  be  a  little  afraid  that  any  confirmation  of 
that  kind  would  be  a  little  bit  open  to  attack.  It  might  be  that  it 
would  legislate  a  man  out  of  some  rights,  possibly. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  We  find  that  a  very  wise  provision  in  the  issuance  of 
district  bonds. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  There  was  a  decision  about  a  year  ago  by  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  State  of  California  on  this  very  point,  that  it 
would  be  well  for  you  to  examine.  The  provision  of  the  California 
law,  as  I  remember  it,  was  that  someone  representing  the  irrigation 
district  could  take  the  case  up  to  the  supreme  court,  and  the  supreme 
court  was  expected  to  pass  on  it,  when  really  he  was  not  a  party  in 
opposition  to  the  bond  issue  but  was  favorable  to  it.  As  I  remember 
the  case,  the  court  held  that  they  would  not  pass  judgment  in  ad- 
vance on  such  a  case  but  that  somebodv  who  had  an  adverse  interest 


36         DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

had  to  bring  the  suit,  and  then  there  would  really  be  an  issue  that 
the  court  could  decide. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  In  other  words,  it  was  a  moot  case. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  Yes. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  You  could  not  make  a  law  in  any  State  that  would 
estop  any  man  from  asserting  any  right  he  has  had  in  the  courts. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  They  have  a  statute  of  limitations  in  most  of  these 
States. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  You  can  not  keep  a  man  from  having  his  day  in 
court. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  This  act  provides  for  both  the  reviewing  by  the 
court  and  for  the  statute  01  limitations  to  have  run. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Remember  that  the  confirmation  is  provided  and 
that  the  Secretary  is  to  be  satisfied.  I  should  say  the  Secretary 
should  be  satisfied  when  it  was  confirmed,  when  the  court  settles  it. 
You  should  not  be  required  to  go  further  than  that. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Now  section  2,  paragraph  F. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  just  read  that.  I  think  it  has  been  practically 
upheld  there  is  a  statute  of  limitations  in  every  State. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  Well,  that  can  be  cleared  up. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  I  think  you  ought  to  be  prepared  to  meet  that  ques- 
tion on  the  floor. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  think  you  are  right. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  While  we  are  talking  about  it,  hi  section  4,  line 
14,  the  language  is,  "been  confirmed  or  shall  be  acceptable  to  the 
Secretary."  I  think  that  ought  to  be  cleared  up. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  That  is  what  I  called  attention  to. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  did  not  get  your  idea  to  start  with.  I  noticed 
that  some  time  ago. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  That  would  seem  to  be  a  little  bit  out  of  harmony 
with  the  other,  unless  we  interpret  that  in  this  way,  that  he  shall  be 
satisfied  the  statute  of  limitations  has  run.  That  would  make  it 
acceptable,  probably.  I  think  confirmation  is  the  best  thing. 

Mr.  SMITH.  On  page  4,  line  4,  after  the  word  "confirmed,"  if  you 
will  put  in  the  words  "by  the  court." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  that  would  be  all  right. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  I  don't  believe  that  phrase  would  entirely  cover  it. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Would  you  strike  out  then  "acceptable  to  the 
Secretary?" 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  In  a  good  many  States  there  is  no  provision  for  the 
confirmation,  and  it  might  be  some  time  before  laws  could  be  passed, 
I  believe  leaving  it  to  be  acceptable  to  the  Secretary  would  broaden 
the  pro  visions  of  the  act. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Do  I  understand  that  in  some  cases  the  issue 
without  any  confirmation  would  be  acceptable  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  By  lapse  of  time.  There  might  be  a  provision  in  the 
law  that  the  validity  of  the  bonds  in  question  would  be  deemed  to  be 
a  binding  obligation  on  the  district  after  a  certain  length  of  time. 
We  have  that  in  the  law  of  our  State.  The  law  provides  for  confirma- 
tion in  court,  but  if  nobody  asks  confirmation  in  court  after  a  certain 
length  of  time  the  validity  of  the  bonds  can  not  be  questioned.  That 
has  been  upheld  as  proper  legislation. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Do  you  think  it  wise  to  tie  the  Government  in  the 
disposal  of  the  bonds  to  the  time  when  the  land  is  worth  double  the 
value  of  the  bonds  ? 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES.         37 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  do. 

Mr.  SLNXOTT.  Why  restrict  the  Government  in  the  sale  of  bonds  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  don't  believe  that  the  Government  ought  to  make 
the  mistake  of  selling  a  bond  issue  and  the  bonds  not  be  readily  paid 
by  the  district.  I  wouldn't  want  a  fall  down  in  the  prompt  payment 
of  these  bonds  after  they  have  been  sold  by  the  Government.  The 
board  might  be  able  to  sell  them  before  the  property  in  the  district 
was  worth  twice  their*  value,  sell  them  in  flush  times,  and  then  dull 
times  might  set  in  and  there  might  be  a  default,  and  it  would  give  a 
black  eye,  so  to  speak,  to  the  sale  of  further  bonds. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  In  the  meantime  the  Government's  money  has  been 
paid  out  and  it  has  not  been  reimbursed. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes,  but  while  the  Government  doesn't  in  any  way 
back  these  bonds — that  is.  the  Government  doesn't  guarantee  the 
bonds — -I  think  the  conduct  of  the  Government  should  be  such  that 
there  would  be  no  danger  of  the  bond  buyer  losing  a  cent,  because  the 
bond  buyer  will  rely  more  or  less  upon  the  faith  he  has  in  the  public 
officials,  the  Federal  officials. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  ask,  are  we  going  to 
hold  another  hearing  or.  two  on  this  bill  before  it  is  reported  out. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  In  that  event,  I  would  like  permission  to  go  now, 
because  I  think  I  would  like  to  be  heard  on  the  bill  at  the  next 
meeting. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  have  several  hearings  on  the  bill. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  Then  I  would  like  to  be  heard  at  the  next  time. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  We  are  taking  up  the  sections  seriatum  on  the  bill 
now. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Now,  section  7  merely  extends  the  authority  of  the 
Federal  farm  loan  act,  an  act  amendatory,  supplementary  thereto 
this  act  here.  Now,  this  bill  has  been  passed  upon  by  several  lawyers 
more  or  less  familiar  with  that  other  act,  and  they  seem  to  think  this 
provision  is  satisfactory. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  want  to  know  in  relation  to  this  just  how  that  is 
workable  and  what  provisions  of  the  farm  loan  act  you  contemplate 
invoking  by  virtue  of  section  7. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  I  prefer  that  you  hear  from  Judge  King  on  that 
matter. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  I  spoke  to  the  judge  the  other  day,  and  I  told  him 
the  committee  would  want  to  know  that,  because  somebody  has  got 
to  explain  that  on  the  floor. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Mr.  Blaine,  most  of  the  confusion  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  laws  of  the  United  States  is  such  legislation  as  that  section 
there.  The  law  is  going  to  be  the  same  as  it  was  somewhere  else  and 
"acts  amendatory  of  or  supplementary  thereto."  It  seems  to  me  if 
I  were  handling  it  I  would  just  put  in 'there  what  it  is  that  you  want 
to  say. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  That  might  be  the  better  way  of  doing  it,  but  on  that 
section  I  would  rather  you  would  listen  to  Judge  King  than  to  me. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  I  am  very  much  inclined  to  agree  with  Mr.  Little. 
To  say  that  all  the  authority  contained  in  the  Federal  farm  loan  act 
and  ''acts  amendatory  thereof  and  supplementary  thereto"  is  hereby 
extended  for  what  purpose  ?  To  provide  for  the  discharge  of  the 
duties  of  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board  as  specified  herein.  It 


38         DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

would  be  much  better  to  say  directly  that  the  Federal  Farm  Loan 
Board  is  authorized  to  perform  any  and  all  acts  necessary  to  carry 
out  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  stop  right  there. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Now.  section  8  provides  "that  all  balances  of  money 
received  under  provisions  of  this  act  not  otherwise  disposed  of  shall 
be  covered  into  the  reclamation  fund."  That  is  only  a  grab-net 
clause  to  provide  for  any  funds  that  might  come  into  the  fund. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  word  " balances"  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  We  have  used  that  as  a  general  term,  or  we  might  use 
the  phraise  "all  moneys  received  under  the  provisions  of  this  act." 
We  might  strike  out  the  word  "balances"  and  make  it  "  all  moneys. " 
I  don't  see  any  necessity  for  using  the  word  "balances." 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  think  you  might  strike  out  the  word  "  balances  "  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes,  sir;  and  say  "  all  moneys." 

Section  9  provides  that  when  the  indebtedness  due  to  the  United 
States  has  been  discharged,  unless  otherwise  provided,  the  control 
of  the  district  shall  pass  into  the  hands  of  the  district. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  What  is  meant  by  the  words  "provided  therein"? 
To  what  does  "therein"  refer  ? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Now,  that  word  "contract,"  why  don't  you  put  that 
expression  at  the  end  of  the  section  instead  of  where  it  is  ?  That 
should  read:  "When  the  indebtedness  of  the  United  States  under  the 
contract  for  construction  has  been  discharged  the  management  shall 
vest  in  the  district,  unless  otherwise  provided  in  the  said  contract." 
That  is  what  you  are  trying  to  say;  why  don't  you  say  it? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Well,  we  can  do  tbiat. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  If  you  give  the  Secretary  any  more  authority  to 
"otherwise"  provide  in  the  contract,  you  don't  set  forth  the  terms  of 
the  contract  between  the  Secretary  and  the  district,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Unless  there  is  something  in  the  contract  that  would 
withhold  the  possession,  it  would  go  to  the  landowners  under  this 
provision. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Now  where  is  the  provision  as  to  the  terms  of  the 
contract  the  Secretary  may  enter  into  ?  What  could  he  do  in  that 
contract  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  I  think  under  the  section  here  he  would  have  power 
to  provide  that  it  should  be  turned  over.  There  might  be  some  reason 
why  it  should  not  be  turned  over  when  it  is  paid  for. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Where  is  the  provision  in  the  bill  authorizing  the 
Secretary  to  make  the  contract  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  That  goes  way  back  to  the  first  part  of  the  bill.  But 
it  is  not  specifically  mentioned  that  he  shall  hold  possession  after  the 
bonds  are  paid — 9r  sold  by  the  Government,  rather. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  In  section  2  it  says:  "may  enter  into  a  contract  with 
a  district  as  herein  provided."  May  entermto  a  contract  to  do  what  ? 
Is  there  something  tied  into  that  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  don't  think  specifically  as  to  withholding  possession 
of  the  project  after  the  Government  has  sold  the  bonds. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  think  you  ought  to  provide  what  that  contract  is 
that  the  Secretary  is  going  to  enter  into. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  I  don't  think  specifically  as  to  withholding  possession 
of  the  project  after  the  Government  has  sold  the  bonds. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  think  you  ought  to  provide  what  that  contract  is 
that  the  Secretary  is  going  to  enter  into. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED  STATES.         39 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Of  course,  he  is  authorized  to  approve  the  contract. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  He  has  authority  to  enter  into  a  contract  with  the 
district  for  its  construction,  and  that  is  all.  He  is  not  authorized 
to  retain  the  management  or  control,  or  anything  of  that  kind.  Of 
course,  under  the  reclamation  act  he  is. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  And  we  bring  the  reclamation  provisions  of  the 
reclamation  act  into  this  law,  so  far  as  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
provisions  of  this  bill.  Now,  Judge  Little  may  think  that  that  ought 
to  be  cleared  up. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  I  did  not  catch  what  you  said  there. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  say,  we  refer  later  on  to  the  provisions  of  the 
reclamation  act,  as  we  have  to  the  Farm  Loan  Board. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Yes,  I  find  that  there  is  an  immense  amount  of 
trouble  and  confusion  in  those  things,  when  you  could  just  as  well 
repeat  the  language.  Now,  take  this  section  10,  have  you  said 
what  you  want  to  say,  "  That  upon  default  of  the  payment  of  principal 
and  interest"  to  mean  "or  interest,"  don't  you? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes,  that  is  a  misprint.  It  should  be  "principal 
or  interest." 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  You  think  that  section  9  should  be  cleared  up, 
then  ?  I  want  to  make  a  check  on  it. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  I  think  that  we  had  better  follow  the  form  con- 
tained in  the  reclamation  law  on  this  subject,  then  we  are  on  safe 
ground. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  I  think  so,  too. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Now,  section  19,  do  you  think  that  adds  anything  to 
the  authority  of  the  Secretary  of  tlie  Interior  ? 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  That  is  an  omnibus  provision  that  is  in  all  bills. 

Mr.  BLATXE.  I  just  wondered  whether  that  would  not  strengthen 
it? 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  He  would  not  have  authority  to  enter  into  any 
other  kind  of  contract  than  the  contract  he  is  permitted  to  enter 
into  under  this  bill. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  That  can  be  cleared  up  very  easily. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  You  say  in  section  18  that  the  money  shall  be 
expended  under  the  terms  and  provisions  of  the  act,  of  the  reclama- 
tion act,  but  that  is  a  pretty  restrictive  authorization.  It  merely 
relates  to  the  expenditure  of  the  money. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Section  10  provides  that  in  case  of  default  in  inter- 
est— that  ought  to  be  "principal  or  interest"  in  that  case — the 
board  may  declare  a  default — the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board  may 
declare  a  default. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Is  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board  in  the  same  position 
as  this  board  is  here,  that  is,  they  don't  ever  foreclose  any  of  theirs; 
does  the  Farm  Loan  Board  ever  foreclose  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Do  they  ever  foreclose? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  They  have  millions  of  dollars  of  irrigation  water 
claims  out,  and  they  have  told  us  several  times  that  they  have  not 
foreclosed  any  of  them,  that  they  have  never  done  anything  about 
it.  What  does  the  Farm  Loan  Board  do  about  it? 

Mr.  WILLLA.MSOX.  They  foreclose  the  same  as  any  other  mortgage 
holder. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  They  really  do  it,  do  they  ?  Do  they  go  into  the  State 
courts  ? 


40         DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  They  usually  foreclose  in  the  State  courts. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  What  do  they  do  about  cost  bonds? 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  I  don't  know  about  that. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  It  provides  that  any  owner  of  bonds  may  take  pro- 
ceedings for  collection  if  the  board  doesn't  act. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  After  default. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  The  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board  has  power  to  declare 
a  default. 

Mr.  LYON.  Is  it  your  idea  to  make  every  man's  land  responsible  for 
the  payments  due  by  every  other  man's  land  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes.  sir.  These  bonds,  as  somebody  has  stated,  "will 
reach  the  last  faithful  acre." 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Are  you  going  to  sell  one  man's  property  to  pay 
another  man's  debts  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  That  is  done  all  the  time. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  They  sign  an  agreement  before  they  go  in. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  It  can't  be  done. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  It  can  be  done. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  held  the 
other  way. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  It  is  done  in  the  case  of  a  municipality,  is 
it  not  ? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  They  can't  do  it. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  The  law  comes  in. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  That  doesn't  make  any  difference,  you  can't  take  a 
man's  property — if  he  waives  right  to  his  land,  of  course  you  can. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Before  they  enter  into  a  contract  to  build  the  project 
they  put  up  bonds,  and  the  bonds  are  a  lien  upon  all  the  lands  in  the 
district. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  That  can  be  decided  at  the  proper  time,  but  that  is 
the  difficulty  in  all  this  legislation.  Does  this  apply  only  to  new 
projects ( 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Entirely  to  new  projects. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Well,  that  might  be  all  right. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  This  provision  in  section  10  is  a  general  provision. 
My  recollection  was  that  in  the  original  bill  you  had  a  more  detailed 
and  specific  method  of  action  in  cases  of  default:  that  is,  you  required 
the  authorities  of  the  State  to  levy  the  tax;  if  they  did  not  levy  it, 
that  the  United  States  might  step  in  and  force  them  to  do  it  through 
some  proceeding  in  the  Federal  Court  or  otherwise.  In  modifying 
this  in  these  general  terms,  do  you  think  you  still  accomplish  every- 
thing you  want  to  do  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  I  might  say  to  you  that  Mr.  Hamele  of  the  Reclama- 
tion Service,  has  a  provision  for  foreclosure  in  the  Federal  Courts. 
He  will  probably  present  his  clause  here. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  He  has  what  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  He  has  a  clause  for  foreclosure  in  the  Federal  courts. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  He  has  an  amendment  for  th>>  ( 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes — at  least,  in  talking  with  him  he  seemed  to  think 
that  should  be  provided  for.  That  was  in  the  old  bill  and  probably 
came  from  Mr.  Hamele  before,  did  it  not,  Mr.  Smith? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No;  I  think  that  came  from  Judge  King.  I  do  not 
think  Mr.  Hamele  was  here  at  that  time. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Mr.  Sinnott,  where  is  that  provision  about  a  man 
signing  up*  before  he  comes  in  ? 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED   STATES.        41 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  is  the  district. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Which  provision  is  it,  where  a  man  signs  away  his 
rights  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Eight  in  the  first  section. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  The  district  puts  up  its  bonds. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Where  is  it? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Section  4  and  following  on.  They  put  up  their 
bonds  first. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  You  have  in  mind,  Judge  Little,  that  a  given  number 
of  people  or  landowners  can  force  a  district  organization  and  include 
in  it  the  land  of  some  man  who  doesn't  want  to  go  in  ? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  On  page  4,  section  4,  it  provides:  "When  the  bonds 
shall  have  been  deposited  and  the  funds  made  available  as  herein 
provided  the  Secretary  shall  be  authorized  to  proceed  with  the  con- 
struction of  the  project." 

The  district  can  put  up  its  bonds;  that  is  all  right,  but  you  can't 
bind  any  man  to  pay  another  man's  debts.  He  has  got  to  bind 
himself. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  All  the  land  in  the  district  is  bound  to  pay  the  bonds 
of  the  district. 

Mr.  LYOX.  The  farm  loan  act,  as  I  understand  it,  is  that  way. 
Each  man  signs  up,  and  every  man's  property  is  responsible  for  the 
other  man's  debts. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  Let  me  give  you  another  illustration,  Judge  Little: 
Take  the  case  where  a  special  road  district  is  organized  in  the  State 
of  Kansas  to  build  a  particular  section  of  road.  On  petition  of  a 
majority  of  the  owners  of  the  abutting  land  the  local  authorities 
authorize  them  to  organize  a  district  and  issue  bonds,  and  they  com- 
pel the  minority,  who  are  opposed  to  the  construction  of  the  road,  to 
bear  their  share  of  the  burden  of  construction.  Exactly  the  same 
principle  is  applicable  here.  It  is  done  over  and  over  again  on 
roads,  street  improvements,  drainage  districts,  and  irrigation  districts 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Probably  this  is  what  Judge  Little  has  in  mind: 
Now,  suppose  there  is  a  bond  issue  of  a  million  dollars  on  a  district,  a 
road  district,  or  any  kind  of  a  district,  and  I  own  160  acres  of  land; 
my-  assessment  for  this  year,  say,  is  $100;  I  pay  that.  John  Doe, 
living  alongside  of  me,  does  not  pay  it;  his  land  is  sold  for  $50,  say; 
how  are  you  going  to  get  the  balance  of  the  $50  ?  Is  that  what  you 
have  in  mind  ? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Yes;  the  same  proposition  that  I  have  been  arguing 
here  for  three  or  four  years.  These  bonds,  though,  merely  go  to 
make  the  general  project,  don't  they? 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  I  believe  you  have  gotten  by  my  objection  here. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  For  comparison,  I  would  like  to  have  inserted  in  the 
record  section  6  of  a  bill  that  was  introduced  in  the  last  Congress  to 
provide  for  the  establishing  of  irrigation  districts,  which  covers  this 
question  of  default.  It  reads  as  follows : 

SEC.  6.  That  upon  default  of  any  installment  of  the  principal  or  interest  of  any  bond 
deposited  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  this 
act,  the  said  Secretary  may  declare  the  entire  amount  of  such  bond  issue  in  default 
and  thereupon  he  shall  call  upon  the  State  under  the  authority  of  which  said  bonds 
were  issued,  through  any  of  its  authorized  agencies  or  officers,  to  levy  and  enforce  the 
payment  of  any  taxes,  forced  contributions,  or  special  assessments 'necessary  to  pay 


42         DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

the  sums  due  to  the  United  States,  and  upon  failure  of  the  State  authorities  so  to  do 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  cause  suit  to  be  instituted  in  the  name  of  the  United 
States,  and  take  such  legal  action  as  may  be  necessary  to  enforce  the  assessment  and 
collection  of  such  taxes  for  the  payment  of  the  amount  of  principal  and  interest  in 
default  or  the  entire  amount  of  such  bond  issue,  principal  and  interest.  It  shall  be 
the  duty  of  the  Attorney  General  to  prosecute  such  suit,  and  any  United  States  dis- 
trict court  for  the  district  in  which  the  lands  affected  by  this  act.'  or  any  part  thereof, 
are  situated,  is  hereby  vested  with  jurisdiction  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  this  ac  . 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  have  to  adjourn  now,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  When  are  we  going  to  hear  Mr.  Elaine  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  can  not  tell  certainly.  There  is  another  bill 
in  particular  that  there  is  a  great  demand  for,  that  we  want  to  dis- 
pose of,  but  we  will  give  Mr.  Elaine  further  hearing  as  soon  as  we 
can. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Mr.  Chairman,  probably  next  Friday  President  Gray 
of  the  Union  Pacific  and  some  of  his  officials  will  be  down  here  to 
testify  before  the  Senate  committee,  and  could  you  arrange  a  hearing 
soon  after  that  Senate  hearing,  so  that  they  can  be  heard  I 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  we  will  arrange  that  just  as  quickly  as 
possible. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  suppose  what  he  wants  to  be  heard  on  is  the 
general  merits  of  the  proposition,  not  the  bill. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  The  points  we  are  asking  Mr.  Gray  to  testify  on  is 
the  lack  of  uniformity  in  density  of  traffic  along  these  transconti- 
nental roads,  and  the  character  of  the  products  produced  in  the 
West  and  where  they  are  marketed. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  would  like  to  get  through  with  Mr.  Elaine  on  the 
phraseology  of  the  bill,  so  that  if  we  discover  anything  that  should 
be  amended,  we  can  take  it  up  with  the  department. 

You  haven't  asked  for  a  report  on  the  bill,  have  you.  judge? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  we  asked  for  a  report  a  good  while  ago  and 
have  not  received  it. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  I  would  like  to  have  here  the  statements  complete, 
so  that  we  could  present  some  of  these  matters  to  the  department 
and  clear  them  up. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  the  report  comes  I  anticipate  it  will  make 
some  pretty  valuable  suggestions  on  that  line,  and  then  our  dis- 
cussions here  will  bring  out  others. 

The  committee  will  now  stand  adjourned,  and  we  are  very  much 
obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Elaine. 

(Whereupon,  at  12.05  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  IRRIGATION  OF  ARID  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Wednesday,  May  25,  1921. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  M.  P.  Kinkaid 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.     Mr.  Elaine, 
you  may  proceed  with  your  statement. 


DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES.        43 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  E.  F.  ELAINE— Resumed. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  will  call  attention  to  section  11  of  this  proposed 
bill,  which  provides  that  the  unentered  and  unpatented  lands  of  the 
United  States  which  may  fall  within  a  district  are  to  be  sold. 

Since  going  over  this  bill  I  might  call  attention  to  one  matter  that 
has  been  discovered,  and  that  is  that  under  the  law  of  1916  we  can 
not  put  Government  lands  within  a  district  unless  50  per  cent  of  all 
the  land  is  privately  owned.  So  it  is  probable  that  this  section  ought 
to  be  amended  in  some  way  so  that  any  amount  of  publicly  owned 
land  may  be  thrown  into  a  district.  I  know  of  no  reason  why  a  solid 
block  of  Government-owned  land  should  not  be  thrown  into  a  district 
and  bonds  be  issued  and  the  bonds  become  a  lien  upon  the  property, 
because  the  property  would  be  sold  and  be  made  subject  to  the  lien 
of  the  bonds. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  We  might  amend  that  act  of  August  11,  1916,  to 
provide  that  any  public  land  included  within  an  irrigation  district 
shall  be  subject  to  this  act,  notwithstanding  that  the  district  may 
contain  more  than  a  majority  acreage  of  public  lands. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes;  it  might  be  amended,  or  a  provision  could  be 
thrown  into  this  act,  just  as  might  be  thought  advisable. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  I  mean  to  amend  section  11  of  this  bill  to  that 
effect. 

Mr.  BLATNE.  Yes;  by  a  specific  provision. 

Mr.  AREXTZ.  Of  course,  you  would  have  to  change  the  wording 
here,  because  there  wouldn't  be  any  contract  between  unpatented 
land  and  the  United  States  Government. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  The  theory  of  the  act  of  August  11,  1916,  was  that 
where  an  irrigation  district  was  created  and  there  was  included  in  it 
certain  tracts  of  public  land,  that  the  action  taken  by  the  owners  of 
the  private  lands  in  forming  the  district  would  be  binding  on  any 
en  try  man  who  afterwards  entered  the  public  land.  In  other  words, 
the  entryman  did  not  have  to  make  an  entry  unless  he  wanted  to, 
but  when  he  did,  he  would  be  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  land  was  in 
an  irrigation  district  and  he  must  assume  the  same  obligation  as  the 
owners  of  private  lands  who  originally  formed  the  irrigation  district. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSOX.  There  would  be  difficulty  should  you  get  too 
much  Government  land  in  any  irrigated  district  as  there  wouldn't 
be  privately  owned  land  there  sufficient  to  make  the  project  feasible. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  It  would  be  sold  to  settlers,  and  all  of  these  lands  the 
settlers  have  got  to  go  upon  them,  because  there  are  very  few  settlers 
upon  the  sagebrush  lands  of  the  far  West  and  the  Mountain  States. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSOX.  I  think  it  was  done  on  the  assumption  that  the 
Government  might  not  be  able  to  dispose  of  enough  of  the  Govern- 
ment lands  in  order  to  make  the  project  feasible.  That  is  why  it  was 
made  50  per  cent,  I  suppose. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Probably  that  is  true,  but  if  this  was  enlarged  it 
would  be  up  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  whether  to  undertake 
any  project  or  not. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSOX.  It  would  be  better,  I  think. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Now,  this  section  also  limits  the  farm  unit,  the 
maximum  farm  unit,  to  160  acres  or  less,  if  the  Secretary  shall  so 
desire,  under  approved  regulations  as  to  residence  and  cultivation, 
with  a  view  to  carrying  out  the  purpose  of  making  the  land  the 
permanent  home  of  a  settler. 


44         DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED  ST.V: 

Under  the  provisions  of  this  bill  the  settlers  are  given  20  years  in 
which  to  pay  for  the  lands  purchased  of  the  Government.  There  has 
been  a  suggestion  made  that  this  period  be  limited  to  10  years.  The 
price  at  which  these  public  lands  would  be  offered  to  settlers  should 
be  generally  very  low,  so  on  a  small  purchase  price  extending  the 
period  over  20  years  has  been  thought  by  a  public  official  to  be 
rather  against  public  policy  and  there  probably  will  be  an  amend- 
ment offered  to  change  that  from  20  years  to  10  years.  I  just  call 
that  to  the  attention  of  the  committee  at  the  present  time. 

Now,  the  other  provisions  there  are  similar  to  the  provisions  in  the 
present  law  in  regard  to  default  in  payment  and  forfeiture,  and  also 
in  relation  to  the  effect  that  no  transfer  by  mortgage  or  lease  shall  be 
valid  without  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  In  other 
words,  the  alienation  of  the  land  is  controlled  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior.  Probably  if  we  look  into  this  we  will  see  that  to  a 
certain  extent  it  will  benefit  the  soldier. 

There  ought  to  be  a  little  latitude,  because  we  might  get  a  soldier 
on  a  piece  of  land  and  he  would  prove  his  unfitness  as  a  farmer,  and 
it  would  be  known  that  he  was  unfit,  and  probably  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  would  confer  a  benefit  upon  him  and  upon  the  general 
project  by  granting  him  leave  to  sell.  But  that  is  under,  I  believe, 
existing  law  and  probably  will  not  be  changed  much. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  Well,  I  don't  wish  to  unduly  butt  in  here  where 
there  are  so  many  gentlemen  and  every  one  wanting  to  say  something, 
but  it  might  be  tnat  I  could  make  a  suggestion  that  might  be  of 
value,  and  that  would  be  this,  that  we  put  a  clause  in  this  act  at  an 
appropriate  place  something  like  this — now,  I  am  only  suggesting 
the  idea  and  leaving  it  to  you  gentlemen  to  perfect  it,  but  a  clause 
to  the  effect  that  none  of  this  land  be  sold  to  a  man  who  is  wholly 
inexperienced;  that  is,  for  instance,  if  I  want  to  buy  some  of  this 
land  I  have  got  to  demonstrate  before  it  will  be  sold  to  me  that  I 
have  had  a  certain  amount  of  experience;  in  other  words,  that  I 
just  didn't  merely  come  out  of  an  office  somewhere  where  I  have 
been  handling  a  typewriter  or  a  pen  all  my  life,  courting  absolute 
failure  from  tne  start- 
Mr.  AREXTZ.  Those  are  the  people  that  make  the  best  farmers,  Mr. 
Herrick.  Contrary  to  what  you  may  think,  the  best  farmers  in  the 
West,  the  apple  growers  and  fruit  growers  of  ah1  kinds,  come  right 
out  of  the  offices. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  My  experience  has  not  been  so.  I  took  a  man  out 
of  the  Wilson  packing  plant  and  financed  him  to  the  tune  of  S250 
and  lost  every  penny  of  it. 

Mr.  AREXTZ.  Your  man  was  an  exception.  Of  course,  it  would  be 
absurd  to  make  any  such  exception  as  that,  because  the  city-bred 
man  makes  a  very  good  farmer. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  dispose  of  those  questions  in  executive 
session.  Proceed,  Mr.  Elaine. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Now.  section  12  refers  to  the  Secretary  receiving  land 
by  gift,  deed  of  trust,  etc.  There  may  be  some  well  disposed  people 
that  want  to  help  the  soldiers  or  others  out  and  make  a  gift.  There 
may  not  be  many  cases  of  that  kind,  but  a  clause  of  this  kind  will 
not  be  harmful,  so  that  the  Secretary  will  have-  the  power. 

Mr.  WILLIAM -•>:•,'.  Mr.  Blaine,  I  notice  a  provision  in  both  section 
11  and  section  13  which  seems  to  me  to  be  a  duplication.  I  was 


DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED  STATES.        45 

wondering  whether  one  can  not  be   eliminated.     You  will  observe 
that  in  section  1 1  there  is  this  provision : 

Xo  transfer,  mortiao-e.  or  lease  of  any  rijrht,  title,  or  interest  under  a  contract  of  sale 
shall  be  valid  v.ithout  the  approval  of  the  Secretary. 

I  find  the  same  provision  over  here  in  section  13 : 

Xo  contract  affecting;  the  land  made  during  a  period  of  five  years  from  the  date  of 
sale  shall  be  valid  without  the  approval  of  the  Secretary,  unless  full  payment  cf  the 
purchase  price  of  such  land  shall  have  been  made. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  One  refers  to  excess  lands  and  the  other  refers  to  the 
public  lands. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  One  is  Government  lands  and  the  other  excess  lands. 
Under  section  13  the  Secretary  may  enter  into  a  contract  with  a 
district  to  construct  a  project,  making  the  maximum  area  to  receive 
a  water  right  to  any  one  person  not  to  exceed  160  acres,  and  the  excess 
acreage  to  be  sold  in  farm  units  "  of  a  size  as  will,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Secretary,  support  a  family,  at  prices  and  on  terms  and  conditions  as 
contained  in  the  contract  with  the  district." 

The  farm  unit  will  vary  in  different  localities.  In  my  State  I  am 
satisfied  the  farm  unit  will  be  fixed  at  a  very  low  maximum.  Per- 
sonally I  would  like  to  see  it  fixed  below  40  acres.  I  realize  that 
more  money  has  been  made  out  of  small  holdings  in  the  State  of 
Washington  than  has  been  made  out  of  the  large  holdings.  In  the 
fruit  district  in  that  State  the  holdings  do  not  equal  10  acres,  and  the 
fruit  orchards  in  the  Yakima  Valley,  where  there  are  some  fourteen 
or  fifteen  thousand  acres  in  fruit,  I  doubt  whether  fruit  orchards 
average  10  acres.  Xo  one  man  can  take  care  of  even  a  10-acre  fruit 
orchard  without  help,  and  in  that  line  of  work  the  greatest  profit 
comes  out  of  the  farmer  doing  his  own  work.  There  we  get  the  best 
results;  there  we  get  the  family  unit  at  its  best  in  those  small  tracts 
and  we  get  community  life  at  its  best.  You  can  not  conceive  a 
higher  civilization  than  we  have  in  the  fruit  districts  of  the  Pacific 
coast,  and  so  I  would  be  exceedingly  pleased  if  the  unit  is  held  down. 
I  realize,  however,  in  the  mountain  districts,  the  outlying  districts, 
where  the  land  is  to  be  given  over  to  general  farming  purposes, 
maybe  wheat,  oats,  barley,  corn,  and  alfalfa,  that  the  acreage  snould 
be  larger. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  fruit  that  is  grown  in  your  State  is  mostly 
apples,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Apples,  pears,  cherries — mixed  fruits.  Apples  pre- 
dominate. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  In  lines  15  and  16  you  say,  uNo  contract  affecting 
the  land."  '"Affecting"  is  a  very  broad  term. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  believe  that  means  directly  affecting  the  land.  It 
would  not  necessarily  be  indirectly  affecting  the  land. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Eut  suppose  a  landowner  made  a  lease  contract; 
that  would  affect  his  land. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  That  would  depend  upon  the  period  largely,  would  it 
not  ? 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  It  struck  me  as  rather  broad  terms. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  A  temporary  lease  probably  for  a  year  would  not 
affect  the  title. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Why  do  you  limit  this  provision  to  a  period  of  five 
years  ? 


46         DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Well,  I  suppose  that  is  a  fair  try  out.  A  man  should' 
have  some  time  to  make  a  fair  trial  and  that  would  eliminate  specu- 
lation. Pie  ought  to  show  good  faith  and  not  be  allowed  to  come  in 
there  purely  to  speculate. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  I  don't  believe  that  a  lease  contract  can  be 
drawn  under  that  provision,  because  that  would  be  clearly  a  contract 
affecting  the  land 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  It  seems  to  me  the  act  should  state  the  nature  of  the 
contract  that  must  have  the  secretary's  approval. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  would  not  want  to  prohibit  the  holder  of  the 
excess  acreage,  who  has  sold  it,  from  transferring  his  security. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  No;  that  is  true. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  We  can  look  into  this  question  a  little  further  and 
probably  clarify  it. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  think  it  is  subject  to  investigation  and  probably 
criticism. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  He  could  make  no  contract  disposing  of  the  lands. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  could  make  no  contract  affecting  the  title,  I 
should  say. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Affecting  the  title,  I  should  say;  yes.  Using  the 
words  " affecting  the  title"  probably  would  be  the  best. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  kind  of  a  contract  do  you  contemplate  be- 
tween the  holder  of  the  excess  acreage  and  his  purchaser  ?  Have  you 
worked  that  out  as  to  his  retention  of  a  lien  for  security  of  the  land  ?' 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Well,  yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Do  you  know  how  they  do  that  under  the  present 
reclamation  land  law  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  So  far  as  I  know  under  the  present  reclamation  law 
each  man  sells  his  own  land  on  such  terms  and  conditions  as  he 
sees  fit. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  There  was  a  provision  in  a  contract  for  the  sale  of 
certain  lands  under  the  Umatilla  project,  I  believe,  where  the  excess 
areas  were  turned  over  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  disposal. 
When  the  Secretary  found  a  purchaser  at  the  agreed  price,  the 
owner  of  the  land  was  obligated  to  issue  a  deed  and  take  a  mortgage 
for  the  unpaid  portion  of  the  purchase  price.  That  plan  was  worked 
out  in  detail  and  seems  to  be  feasible. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Yes;  I  sold  a  ditch  one  time  to  the  Government  and 
retained  the  water  rights  to  the  unsold  land.  We  sold  our  unsold 
lands — we  disposed  of  them  on  such  terms  and  conditions  as  we  saw 
fit,  and  we  just  followed  out  our  old  system  of  contract  under  a 
five-year  plan,  or  really  a  six-year  plan,  one-fifth  down,  one-fifth  in 
two  years,  and  one-fifth  each  year  thereafter.  That  was  considered 
proper  under  the  present  law. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Was  that  under  the  present  law  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Under  the  present  law;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  took  a  mortgage,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  No;  we  just  had  our  contract,  a  six-year  contract, 
one-fifth  down  and  one-fifth  in  two  years,  and  one-fifth  each  year 
thereafter  with  deferred  payments  at  6  per  cent. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  retained  title  until  full  payment  was  made  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Yes;  and  in  case  of  forfeiture. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  see  the  present  law  is  that  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  shall  require  the  owners  of  private  lands  thereunder  to  agree 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES.        47 

to  dispose  of  all  lands  in  excess  of  the  area,  and  so  on,  upon  such 
terms  and  not  to  exceed  such  price  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
may  designate. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  don't  believe  that  I  would  make  that  too  unyielding. 
If  you  lay  down  a  fixed  rule  it  may  not  work  in  all  cases. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  But  it  is  absolutely  essential  that  the  price  of  the 
excess  areas  be  agreed  upon  before  the  project  is  undertaken,  so  that 
the  new  settlers  will  obtain  what  is  called  the  " unearned  increment." 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Yes;  that  is  a  thing  that  wants  to  be  fixed. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  That  is  fixed  in  the  first  part  of  the  bill,  page  3,  as 
a  condition  precedent  to  the  Secretary  entering  into  a  contract  that 
the  owners  of  excess  lands  shall  have  agreed  with  the  Secretary  upon 
the  price,  terms,  and  conditions  upon  which  they  will  sell  their 
excess  holdings  to  settlers. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  That  is  a  condition  precedent  to  the  authorization 
of  the  project,  but  the  Secretary  should  be  authorized  by  law  to 
enter  into  such  a  contract. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  Authorized  by  law  to  make  them  sell? 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  Authorized  to  enter  into  an  agreement  with  the 
owners  of  the  land  as  to  the  price  that  he  will  receive  for  it  when  the 
Secretary  sells  it  to  new  settlers. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSOX.  I  think  that  covers  it. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  That  will  come  a  little  later,  Mr.  Hayden. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  Congress  should  adopt  about  the  same  rule  as  was 
laid  down  in  the  reclamation  extension  act,  so  there  can  not  be  any 
question  about  the  disposal  of  excess  areas.  If  we  do  not  do  that,  if 
we  leave  any  latitude,  what  is  going  to  happen  is  that  there  will  be 
loose  contracts  drawn  whereby  the  original  owner  of  the  land  will  be 
in  position  to  cancel  the  settler  out  of  his  equity  and  sell  the  land  to 
somebody  else  for  a  higher  price. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  You  mean  that  the  terms  shall  be  fixed  in  the  bill  ? 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  No;  the  authority  to  make  such  an  agreement  with 
the  owners  of  excess  areas  must  be  specifically  granted  to  the  Sec- 
retary. The  Secretary  can  only  do  such  things  as  are  authorized 
by  law. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Well,  it  says  under  section  19: 

That  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  is  hereby  authorized  to  perform  any  and  all  acts 
and  to  make  such  rules  and  regulations  as  "in  his  discretion  may  be  necessary  for 
carrying  the  pro-visions  of  this  act  into  full  force  and  effect. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  That  is  the  general  covering-in  clause,  which  we  have 
used  a  number  of  times,  but  it  is  better  to  say  just  what  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior  can  do  and  make  it  perfectly  clear. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  You  mean  he  shall  be  authorized  to  enter  into  all  the 
contracts  contemplated  by  this  act  ? 

Mr.  WILLIAMSOX.  I  think  it  is  better  to  leave  it  the  way  it  is  rather 
than  to  make  it  too  definite,  because  you  tie  him  up  then.  I  think 
this  provision  is  broad  enough  to  enable  him  to  enter  into  contracts 
of  the  character  made  by  him  in  the  past. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  We  want  to  be  sure  about  that. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes;  we  ought  to  be  sure  about  it. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Of  course,  it  is  implied  in  here  that  the  Secretary 
may  enter  into  a  contract  with  the  district  when  he  shall  be  satisfied; 
then  it  itemizes  the  things  he  must  be  satisfied  of,  among  them  that 
the  owners  of  excess  lands  shall  have  agreed  with  the  Secretary  upon 
the  price,  terms,  and  conditions. 


48         DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

Mr.  UAYDEX.  But  would  it  not  be  better  to  say  that  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior  is  authorized  to  enter  into  contracts  with  the  owners  of 
excess  lands  as  to  the  price,  terms,  and  conditions  for  the  sale  of  such 
lands  than  to  handle  it  by  implication  ? 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  Yes;  it  would  be  better  legislation. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSOX.  "Is  authorized  and  required."  You  might  put 
it  that  way.  Where  would  you  put  that  in  2 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  I  think  it  should  go  right  here  in  section  13.  We 
should  compare  that  section  with  the  reclamation  law  when  we  get 
to  it. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Xow,  the  Secretary  is  not  to  enter  into  a  contract  with 
the  district  unless  80  per  cent  of  all  holdings  consent  to  the  maximum 
area  established  by  the  Secretary.  Eighty  per  cent  is  certainly,  in 
my  judgment,  low' enough,  but  probably  is~  about  as  good  a  figure  as 
it  can  be  fixed  at.  The  owner  of  these  excess  areas  must  grant  a 
power  of  attorney,  irrevocable  in  nature,  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  to  sell  their  excess  lands,  and  whenever  he  may  doom  it  for 
the  best  interests  of  the  project  and  shall  sell  all  remaining  lands 
unsold  at  the  expiration  of  five  years  at  public  auction.  It  has  been 
suggested  that  all  excess  lands' shall  be  sold  within  one  year  after 
water  is  available  for  such  lands,  instead  of  live  years  after  the  com- 
pletion of  the  project,  and  I  am  inclined  to  think  there  is  a  good  deal 
x)f  force  in  that  suggestion. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  meanwhile,  if  that  is  not  done,  what  would 
the  excess  lands  be  devoted  to,  or  who  would  be  using  them  ?  Would 
the  owner  be  enjoying  the  use  of  them  and  getting  water  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  According  to  the  power  of  attorney.  There  is  a 
power  of  attorney  to  be  irrevocable  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to 
sell  these  lands,  but  if  he  does  not  sell  them — 

The  CHAIRMAX  (interposing).  After  five  years. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  He  can  sell  them  at  any  time  within  five  years.  He 
can  sell  them  within  30  days  after  the  opening  of  the  project,  but 
maybe  five  years  is  a  long  tune  to  wait  before  he  can  put  the  balance 
of  the  lands  up  at  public  auction.  It  might  be  just  as  well  to  sell 
them  one  year  after  the  water  is  available  for  the  land,  not  to  leave 
those  outstanding  lands  too  long. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Why  is  tiiis  power  irrevocable  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Because  it  ought  not  to  be  a  power  that  can  be 
revoked  at  the  will  of  the  landowner. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  I  just  suggest  that  allowing  it  to  continue  for 
five  years  unsold,  allowing  the  holder  to  continue  for  five  years. 
brings  up  a  question  of  injustice  perhaps  in  this  on  the  matter  of 
unearned  increment.  You  see  during  these  five  years  the  land  is  not 
being  sold  and  the  value  presumably  rises  somewhat  and  values 
would  be  doubled  say;  now  are  you  going  to  sell  to  a  latter-day  comer, 
an  eleventh-hour  comer,  at  the  same  price  that  you  sold  to  the  man 
who  came  at  the  beginning  ?  Say  you  sell  to  a  man  that  comes  at  the 
end  of  five  years,  or  four  years,  you  sell  to  him  at  the  same  price  that 
you  sell  to  the  man  who  comes  the  first  year  ( 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  beg  your  pardon,  Mr.  Chairman;  I  did  not  get  that. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  lou  sell  to  the  purchaser  that  applies  and  makes 
a  purchase  at  the  end  of  four  years  at  the  same  price  per  acre  that 
you  sold  to  some  one  who  came  at  the  end  of  one  year,  you  see.  Now, 
.the  man  who  came  at  the  end  of  one  year  and  bought  and  went  on 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.        49 

and  helped  improve  it,  he  has  been  helping  to  create  this  unearned 
increment  on  the  lands  that  remained  unsold  for  four  years,  and  he 
takes  his  chances  as  to  whether  there  will  be  any  unearned  increment, 
whether  there  will  be  any  rise  in  value  of  these  lands;  but  here  comes 
this  man  who  waits  for  four  years  and  sees  that  the  land  has  doubled 
in  value;  he  takes  no  chances;  he  comes  along  and  buys  it  at  the  same 
price  that  the  man  did  who  bought  it  at  the  end  of  the  first  year, 
and  he  hasn't  done  anything  in  the  way  of  public  spirit  or  helped  in 
the  improvement  of  the  lands  or  helped  the  community  to  advance 
it  in  any  way,  and  you  are  fixed  down  to  a  certain  price  there;  you 
are  going  to  have  tne  Secretary  sell  the  lands  at  precisely  the  same 
figure.  He  has  a  maximum  now  above  which  he  can  not  sell  these 
lands,  you  see,  and  that  maximum  holds  just  the  same  during  all 
these  four  years,  yet  the  land  has  become  twice  as  valuable  in  four 
years  as  it  was  in  one  year. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  let  us  consider  the 
other  side  of  the  case.  Do  you  propose  that  the  owner  of  this  excess 
land,  who  has  done  nothing  himself  but  hold  it  and  allow  the  Govern- 
ment to  spend  money  and  create  values — are  you  going  to  let  the 
present  owner  get  that  unearned  increment  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No;  I  say  it  raises  the  question  of  injustice,  both 
as  to  the  owner  of  the  land  and  as  to  the  first  purchasers,  those  who 
purchased  in  one  year,  for  instance;  they  pay  the  maximum,  say,  and 
here  come  these  others  at  the  end  of  three  years  or  at  the  end  of  four 
years,  on  most  of  these  projects  in  three  or  four  years  it  will  be  ap- 
parent whether  they  are  going  to  be  a  big  success;  they  know  whether 
the  values  are  going  to  rise,  they  know  other  people  are  going  to  come 
in,  and  that  the  values  will  come  up,  and  here  is  a  man  that  waits  for 
four  years  until  times  are  better,  say,  and  capital  is  more  plentiful; 
he  knows  what  is  going  to  take  place  and  he  can  \)uy  at  the  same 
price  at  the  end  of  four  or  five  years  that  he  could  have  bought  at  the 
end  of  one  year,  and  it  doesn't  cost  him  a  cent;  he  hasn't  put  up  an 
earnest  option  or  anything  else. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  He  has  taken  a  chance  that  somebody  else  will  buy 
it  in  the  meantime. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  I  think  is  a  little  problem,  something  that 
deserves  consideration. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  In  other  words,  in  justice  to  all,  all  ought  to  purchase 
at  about  the  same  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  they  ought  to  take  equal  chances,  equal  risks 
and  equal  burdens  and  equal  responsibilities  in  making  this  project 
a  success. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  But  there  is  no  known  way,  Mr.  Chairman,  of  com- 
pelling anybody  to  buy  anything  unless  he  wants  to. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  No;  but  you  have  a  sale  at  public  auction.  If  it 
has  not  been  sold  at  private  sale  you  finish  up  by  public  auction. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  That  is  the  chief  virtue  of  the  amendment  which 
Mr.  Elaine  has  suggested,  that  instead  of  making  it  five  years,  let  the 
bill  provide  that  the  land  may  be  sold  within  one  year  after  water  is 
.available,  at  public  auction. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  what  I  am  addressing  myself  to,  that  very 
point,  the  wisdom  of  that.  I  know  a  case  just  Tike  this.  I  have  had 
one  big  object  lesson  presented  to  me,  and  the  owners  feel  that  they 

56664—21 4 


50         DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

ought  to  have  the  benefit  of  the  rise  due  to  causes  other  than  re- 
clamation. I  mentioned  it  here  the  other  day.  at  the  last  sitting, 
perhaps.  They  feel  that  they  ought  to  have  a'share  in  the  rise,  you 
see,  and  it  seems  to  me  very  clear  that  the  man  who  stands  back, 
say  for  four  years,  whether  it  is  not  unfair  to  let  him  have  all  that 
four  years  to  observe  conditions  while  the  others  take  hold  right  at 
the  start  in  the  first  year  and  develop  the  project,  add  to  the  value, 
improve  it  so  that  the  values  of  all  the  lands  are  enhanced,  and  then 
he  comes  along  and  buys,  buys  maybe  when  he  has  doubled  his 
money  before  ne  invests  anything,  doubles  his  money  before  he 
invests  a  dollar.  That  is  what  it  means.  I  think  that  ought  to  be 
taken  care  of,  and  I  think  the  suggestion  there  of  Mr.  Elaine's — and 
this  bears  on  that  very  question — should  be  considered. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON*.  That  is,  you  would  shorten  the  time  '. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  shorten  the  time,  because  it  is  going  to 
work  a  great  injustice  and  the  water  users  are  going  to  complain  of  it. 

Mr.  LYON.  But  on  the  other  hand,  Judge,  wouldn't  prospective 
purchasers  hold  off,  waiting  for  the  sale  at  public  auction,  expecting 
to  get  the  land  cheaper  than  at  a  private  sale  I 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  would  hold  back  as  long  as  somebody  else 
was  taking  all  the  risk,  going  on  with  development,  and  they  would 
get  the  unearned  increment.  It  tends  to  encourage  them 'to  hold 
off. 

Mr.  LYON.  But  if  they  knew  there  was  going  to  be  a  sale  at  public 
auction  within  12  months  they  wouldn't  buy  at  a  private  sale,  it 
strikes  me.  They  would  try  to  buy  it  as  cheap  as  possible. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  The}'  would  wait  for  this  auction,  if  it  was  coming 
within  12  months. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  You  could  safeguard  that  by  saying  it  could 
not  be  sold  for  less  than  a  certain  price  in  the  beginning. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  It  will  be  the  Secretary's  purpose  to  sell  that  land  as 
cheaply  as  possible,  because  the  main  burden  is  not  going  to  be  the 
purchase  price,  but  the  water  rights  that  will  be  put  on  top  of  the 
purchase  price. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  What  is  the  provision  in  case  these  lands  sell  at 
public  auction  for  more  than  the  price  agreed  upon  with  the  original 
holder  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  doubt  if  it  will  sell  for  more.  Why  wouldn't  they 
buy  it  beforehand,  then? 

Mr.  I).v\  KiiEAi).  Mr.  Blaine.  let  me  ask  you  one  question.  Un- 
fortunately I  did  not  know  about  the  hearing  on  Monday. 

Does  your  bill  propose  for  the  evential  repayment  to  the  Govern- 
ment of' the  amount  of  these  appropriations? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  How  is  that,  Mr.  Bankhead  ? 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  Does  this  bill  provide  for  the  eventual  repayment 
to  the  Government  of  the  amount  of  these  appropriations  that  are 
made  in  this  bill  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes,  that  comes  later  on  in  the  bill. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  Wouldn't  it  be  a  good  idea  in  determining  this 
question  whether  or  not  these  lands  might  bring  a  bigger  price  than 
the  amount  agreed  upon  by  the  owners,  to  look  to  the  protection  of 
the  fund,  the  repayment  to  the  fund  out  of  that  excess  purchase 
price?  Because  the  owners  of  the  land  have  bonded  their  property 
under  this  bill. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED  STATES.         51 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  It  would  go  into  the  reclamation  fund  anyway, 
if  there  is  any  excess. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  comes  under  section  16,  Mr.  Bankhead. 

Mr.  BAXKIIEAD.  Very  well,  I  thought  it  might  be  pertinent  in 
connection  with,  this  discussion  of  the  chairman. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  Isn't  it  a  fact  that  the  Government  is  acting  in  the 
capacity  of  promoter,  broker,  and  receiver  in  these  projects  to  a 
certain 'extent? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Xo,  not  quite  as  broad  as  that. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  Doesn't  it  amount  to  the  fact  that  the  Govern- 
ment itself  is  undertaking  to  do  the  work  under  Government  super- 
vision ?  Isn't  that  the  fact  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  The  Government  does  the  work. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  Under  Government  supervision  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  And  at  the  same  time  the  Government  is  under- 
taking to  arrange  the  disposal  of  it.  Is  not  that  a  fact  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  Well,  now,  that  being  a  fact,  why  wouldn't  it  be 
possible,  just  as  soon  as  one  of  these  projects  is  officially  determined 
upon,  that  it  will  be  built  and  earned  out.  just  like  if  you  were  going 
to  decide  to  erect  a  building  on  a  lot  here  in  Washington,  why  wouldn't 
it  be  proper  to  ascertain  the  price  at  which  the  surplus  land  could 
be  sold,  make  it  a  fixed  price  and  then  sell  it  at  an  opening  on  a  cer- 
tain day  and  get  it  disposed  of  at  once  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  That  is  what  this  bill  does.  The  project  is  thrown 
open  for  settlement;  the  preference  right  to  settle  on  these  excess 
areas  is  given  to  soldiers,  and  they  have  six  months  in  which  to  make 
their  investigation. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  In  that  event,  I  anticipate  that  there  should  be  no 
difficulty  in  having  more  applicants  than  there  is  really  land  for. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  "think  you  are  right.  The  lands  tliat  will  not  be 
sold  within  a  short  time  will  be  the  poorer  lands,  and  ultimately  you 
will  have  them  put  up  at  public  auction.  They  may  bring  less  man 
what  they  have  been  put  in  the  district  at.  I  am  not  looking  for 
the  good  land  to  go  begging. 

Mr.  LYON.  Then  who  pays  the  landowner  the  difference  between 
the  contract  price  and  the  sale  price  2 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  He  only  gets  what  is  realized  at  the  public  auction. 

Mr.  LYON.  In  his  original  contract  then  he  just  agrees  to  sell  at  a 
certain  price,  provided  the  land  brings  that  price? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  It  is  not  contemplated  that  he  gets  what  is  realized 
at  public  auction,  necessarily;  he  enters  into  a  contract  with  the 
Secretary  that  the  land  shall  be  sold  at  a  certain  price.  That  is 
before  the  Secretary  approves  of  the  district.  The  object  is  not  to 
let  the  landowner  get  a  big  price  but  to  have  this  land  disposed  of 
at  some  reasonable  price  in  its  natural  state. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  The  object  is  to  pay  the  landowner  what  his  land  is 
reasonably  worth  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  district.  He 
gets  nothing  beyond  that.  But  I  don't  think  the  bill  contemplates 
that  the  Government  shall  get  any  profit  out  of  the  land;  the  idea  is 
to  get  the  land  into  the  hands  of  the  settler  at  as  low  a  price  as  pos- 
sible. 


52         DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE  IX  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  Because  he  is  going  to  have  the  burden  of  paying  for 
the  water  right. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  But  if  you  put  them  up  at  public  auction,  then  you 
have  to  get  the  most  you  can  get  out  of  them,  and  if  that  exceeds 
the  price  fixed — which  it  probably  will  not  do — but  if  it  should  bring 
a  higher  price,  then  it  seems  to  me  it  ought  to  be  specified  that  this 
shall  go  into  the  reclamation  fund. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  It  is  so  provided. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  don't  see  it.  It  would  add  strength  to  the  bill;  it 
would  show  that  there  was  no  land  speculation  under  any  circum- 
stances. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Blaine,  I  would  like  to  ask  the 
judge — I  don't  know  whether  I  followed  you  very  closely  a  while  ago — 
if  there  is  no  fixed  price  upon  this  land  and  the  Secretary  can  charge 
whatever  he  thinks  proper,  and  it  is  put  up  at  auction,  what  incentive 
would  there  be  for  a  purchaser  to  hold  off  ?  For  instance,  if  the  im- 
provements that  you  make  upon  land  enhance  the  value,  and  I  have 
to  pay  that  additional,  what  incentive  would  there  be  to  me  to  hold 
off  on  a  purchase  '. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  I  believe  that  you  misunderstood  the  chairman. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Probably  I  did.  That  is  what  I  was  trying  to 
clear  up. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  As  I  understand  it,  there  is  to  be  a  fixed  price.  The 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  is  to  agree  with  the  owners  of  excess  areas  of 
land  that  he  will  sell  the  excess  at  a  fair  price,  agreed  upon  in  advance. 
When  the  Secretary  declares  the  project  open,  all  such  lands  will  be 
subject  to  sale  and  settlement,  first  by  ex-soldiers. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  He  doesn't  fix  a  price,  though? 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  The  Secretary  fixes  a  price  as  agreed  upon  with  the 
landowner.  After  the  project  is  completed  and  the  water  is  available, 
if  there  are  certain  tracts,  as  there  are  under  every  project,  where  the 
land  is  rough  and  will  require  leveling,  that  the  returned  soldiers  have 
not  taken,  the  Secretary  will  offer  such  tracts  for  sale  at  auction,  and 
whatever  the  land  brings  at  that  sale  the  original  owner  must  accept, 
even  though  it  be  less  than  the  price  agreed  upon.  If  the  land  should 
sell  for  more  than  the  agreed  price,  as  Dr.  hummers  has  suggested, 
through  competition  at  the  auction — although  I  do  not  see  how  that 
could  happen,  because  everyone  would  have  the  option  of  buying  from 
time  to  time — -but  if  there  was  any  excess  realized,  Congress  might 
provide,  as  we  did  in  the  case  of  the  auxiliary  projects  on  the  Yuma 
Mesa,  that  where  tracts  are  offered  for  sale  ana  bring  more  than  the 
appraised  price,  that  the  excess  shall  go  to  the  credit  of  the  project 
and  help  reduce  the  construction  charge. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Mr.  Sinnott  has  now  called  my  attention  to  section 
8,  which  says  that  all  moneys  received  under  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  not  otherwise  disposed  of,  shall  be  covered  into  the  reclamation 
fund. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  My  idea  is  that  rather  than  go  to  the  credit  of  the  fund 
as  a  whole  it  ought  to  go  to  the  credit  of  the  project. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  I  agree  with  you. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  What  I  have  in  mind  was  that  there  would  be  cases 
where  the  same  quality  of  land,  land  of  the  same  productive  capacity 
and  desirability,  would  remain  unsold  at  the  end  of  four  years,  as 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE   IN   THE   UNITED  STATES.         53 

was  purchased  at  the  start,  and  that  the  purchaser  at  the  end  of 
four  years  would  be  deriving  the  benefit  of  the  unearned  increment. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH,  I  see  your  point,  and  it  is  well  taken. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  having  invested  a  dollar. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  I  see  your  point. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  that  the  option  comes  at  the  end  of  five  years, 
and  it  ought  to  come  earlier. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  I  agree  with  you. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question  or  two  of  you,  judge. 
Was  it  the  intention  of  the  committee  to  try  to  complete  the  con- 
sideration of  this  bill  to-day? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  The  reason  I  asked  that  question,  judge,  is  this, 
that  before  the  completion  of  this  hearing  I  am  contemplating  an 
amendment,  and  I  would  not  undertake  to  take  up  the  time  of  the 
committee  if  it  was  not  intended  to  complete  to-day,  because  there 
are  some  matters  that  I  would  rather  look  up  first,  and  it  is  just 
possible  that  I  might  like  to  see  whether  I  could  get  the  committee 
to  agree  to  an  additional  section. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  wait  for  that  for  executive  session,  after 
we  get  through  with  the  witnesses. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  The  latter  part  of  this  section,  section  13,  at  the  top 
of  page  9,  provides  in  regard  to  State  owned  lands  or  minor  sub- 
divisions of  the  State  owning  lands,  that  those  shall  be  disposed  of, 
excess  areas  disposed  of  as  excess  areas,  etc.  That  will  depend,  of 
course,  upon  the  laws  of  the  different  States,  and  probably  the 
States  will,  in  order  to  take  full  advantage  of  this  law,  authorize  the 
proper  officers  to  agree  to  the  disposition  of  excess  areas.  I  am 
quite  sure  that  all  the  States  will  have  to  show  a  willingness  to 
cooperate  under  this  act  in  order  to  get  the  full  benefit  of  it. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Your  idea  is  that  school  sections  and  tracts  of 
State  land  are  sure  to  be  found  in  all  of  the  projects? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes;  college  lands,  and  all  that  sorts  of  land. 

Section  14  grants  a  preference  right  of  entry  for  the  period  of  six 
months  to  soldiers  of  different  wars,  and  that  gives  them  a  period  of 
six  months  after  the  opening  of  a  project  within  which  they  have 
this  preference  right  of  entry  for  the  purchase  of  public  lands  within 
the  project,  and  also  the  excess  lands.  It  is  thought  that  under  the 
provisions  of  this  act,  taking  one  project  with  another,  that  the 
ex-service  men  and  women  would  receive  practically  50  per  cent  of 
all  lands  reclaimed.  Personally  I  think  that  is  true. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Now,  this  would  cover  the  veterans  of  the  Civil  WTar, 
too? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Do  you  think  that  is  wise  ?  Are  many  of  these  men 
physically  able  to  do  much  work  upon  a  project? 

Mr.  LYON.  Some  of  the  widows  may  be. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  I  don't  believe  there  would  be  enough  of  them 
to  make  any  difference. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  It  might  lead  to  speculation. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Well,  will  you  limit  it  to  those  who  have  not  hereto- 
fore exercised  the  rights  of  homesteading  ? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  The  present  law  limits  it  to  soldiers  of  the  last  war. 


54         DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UXITED  STATES. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Well,  it  is  those  who  served  on  the  American  border 
and  the  Spanish  War  veterans.  It  seems  to  me  you  might  limit  it  to 
those  wars. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  wise  to  discriminate  against 
the  Union  soldiers  in  any  legislation.  That  is  what  we  would  be 
doing. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  You  are  not  discriminating.  You  are  merely  recog- 
nizing the  fact  that  many  of  these  men  are  old  and  decrepit,  and 
could  not  perform  the  necessary  physical  labor  to  cultivate  their 
farms. 

Mr.  SMITH.  But  they  probably  would  not  want  to  go  onto  a 
homestead. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Very  few  of  them  could  do  the  actual  physical 
labor  necessary.  We  are  not  discriminating  against  them  at  all, 
but  simply  recognizing  that  fact. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  will  be  three  or  four  years  before  any  of  these  projects 
are  opened,  and  by  that  time  there  will  be  very  few  of  the  veterans 
who  will  be  inclined  toward  going  on  them. 

Mr.  AREXTZ.  And  during  these  three  or  four  years,  Mr.  Smith, 
it  will  be  necessary  for  them  to  make  their  payments  of  two  or  three 
hundred  dollars  a  year  in  order  to  carry  them  by,  improve  their 
lands,  and  they  will  be  up  against  it  to  make  these  payments. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  They  don't  have  to  make  any  payments  until 
the  project  is  completed,  do  they  I 

Mr.  AREXTZ.  Yes:  they  make  yearly  payments. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  I  understand  our  chairman  would  be  eligible.  He 
is  hale  and  hearty,  and  I  wouldn't  want  to  exclude  him. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  I  haven't  had  military  service,  however. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  The  present  law  provides  for  a  preference  right  of 
60  days. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  Gentlemen,  I  think  we  can  dispose  of  this  point  of 
controversy  very  easily  by  ignoring  it.  It  is  a  fact  that  most  of  these 
old  veterans  are  so  old  and  out  of  the  running,  as  you  might  say,  to 
use  a  slang  term  that  is  used  in  horse  races,  that  there  won't  be  any 
danger  of  any  of  them  butting  in,  unless  they  are  financially  able  to 
hire  or  they  have  some  funds  or  other  relatives  to  do  the  work.  I 
think  that^  disposes  of  the  question  automatically,  and  I  don't 
believe  it  would  be  wise  to  slap  them  in  the  face  by  putting  a  dis- 
crimination in  there. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  Now,  as  to  the  period  of  six  months,  the  present 
law  provides  a  preference  right  of  60  days,  which  the  Public  Lands 
Committee  recommended  be  extended  to  90  days.  Why  should 
there  be  any  difference  between  this  bill  and  the  existing  law  on  that 
subject  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  The  only  object  of  that  is  to  give  them  a  little  longer 
time  for  investigation,  and  I  don't  know  that  it  is  necessary;  they 
may  investigate  prior  to  the  opening  of  the  project. 

the  CHAIRMAN.  That  would  hold  back  a  good  while — six  months. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  The  reclamation  service  aims  to  have  its  openings 
sometime  in  the  fall,  and  too  long  a  period  would  extend  the  actual 
entry  of  the  lands  over  into  the  summer.  They  ought  to  be  able — 
the  time  should  be  so  arranged  that  they  would  start  in  in  the  spring. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Of  course  there  is  a  provision  in  here  that  projects 
for  the  benefit  of  the  soldiers  can  be  thrown  open  prior  to  their  com- 
pletion, at  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  That 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES.         55 

would  give  the  service  men  some  extra  opportunity  to  take  advantage 
of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  would  help  them  out  somewhat. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  You  say  men,  women,  and  widows  of  men  who  have 
served  in  the  Army.  Isn't  that  broad  enough  to  permit  the  widow 
of  a  man  who  has  taken  up  one  of  these  units,  in  case  of  his  death, 
taking  another  one  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  I  think  there  ought  to  be  a  clause  put  in  here  that 
this  should  be  limited  to  soldiers  who  have  not  availed  themselves 
of  land  under  the  present  laws. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  ^  ou  mean  widows  of  men  who  have  not  taken  an 
entry  ?  That  could  be  fixed. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  That  would  be  a  wise  provision,  I  think. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  If  you  would  say  "who  are  otherwise  qualified  to 
make  entries  under  the  homestead  laws,"  that  would  cover  the  case. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes;  I  think  that  would  be  a  limitation  that  ought 
to  go  in. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  What  I  meant  by  my  statement,  Mr.  Bankhead,  was 
the  fact  that  oftentimes  these  districts  comprise  four  or  five  different 
projects,  units,  and  when  one  unit  is  completed,  that  land  will  be  put 
under  cultivation,  and  it  takes  some  time  before  the  two  or  three  or 
four  units  will  be  completed. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  Mr.  Sinnott,  would  you  have  it  read  something 
like  this:  "In  which  men  and  women  and  the  widows  of  men  who 
have  served  in  the  Army,  Navy,  Marine  Corps  of  the  United  States, 
and  who  are  otherwise  qualified  under  existing  laws?" 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  No;  I  wouldn't  have  it  that  way,  because  that  would 
shut  out  men  who  served  in  the  war,  but  have  heretofore  had  a  home- 
stead'entry  and  probably  sold  it.  We  don't  want  to  shut  them  out 
just  because  they  may  Have  had  a  wild  desert  land  homestead. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  We  might  follow  what  I  understand  to  be  the  prac- 
tice in  Texas,  where  a  man  may  acquire  a  homestead  from  the  State 
if  he  swears  that  he  does  not  now  own  a  home.  Is  that  the  present 
Texas  law  ? 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  No. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  We  have  a  limitation  here  of  160  acres. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  He  can  buy  land  up  to  eight  sections  in  certain 
districts  in  Texas,  no  matter  if  he  owns  the  finest  home  in  Fort  Worth. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  Of  course  under  the  present  homestead  laws  a 
man  can  only  own  160  acres,  if  he  files  on  a  homestead. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Well,  you  have  a  provision  in  here,  haven't  you,  that 
one  can  not  take  up  any  of  these  units  if  adding  the  unit  to  his  present 
holdings  exceeds  160  acres? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes;  that  is  true  as  to  his  present  holdings. 

Now,  section  15  is  to  enable  the  Secretary  to  carry  on  and  complete 
projects  begun  or  approved,  and  for  the  investigation,  commence- 
ment, and  completion  of  other  projects  as  may  be  deemed  feasible, 
and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  authorized  and  directed,  upon 
request  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  to  transfer  from  time  to  time 
to  the  credit  of  the  reclamation  fund  such  money  as  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior  may  deem  necessary.  Then  it  provides  that  the 
amount  that  may  be  transferred  to  the  reclamation  fund  during  the 
fiscal  year  ending  1922  shall  not  exceed  $20.000,000;  for  1923,  $35,000, 
000;  for  1924,  $45,000,000,  and  for  each  year  after  that  for  four  years 


56         DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

not  to  exceed  §50. 000, 000.  If  all  of  these  sums  are  appropriated 
there  will  be  a  total  of  $250.000,000. 

Now,  this  money,  $250,000.000,  if  invested — properly  invested — 
and  particularly  if  it  is  invested  in  small  projects  first,  and  these 
small  projects  are  completed  within  a  short  period  of  time,  and  if 
the  property  within  these  smaller  projects  increases  rapidly  in  value, 
within  tour  or  five  years,  or  six  years,  probably,  at  the  outside,  there 
ought  to  be  a  rapid  turnover  of  the  money  that  goes  into  these  proj- 
ects from  the  sale  of  the  bonds  of  the  district. 

Now,  I  have  made  some  calculations  upon  the  theory  that 
§20,000,000  will  go  in  the  first  year,  and  $35,000,000  the  second  year, 
and  $45,000,000  the  third  year,  and  $50,000.000  each  year  thereafter, 
and  I  have  allowed  4  percent  interest  upon  the  moneys  as  they  go 
in.  The  district  bonds  call  for  5  per  cent,  but  I  have  calculated  this 
rate  of  interest  at  4  per  cent,  because  the  money  will  not  be  in  use 
all  the  time.  In  other  words,  there  will  be  a  working  capital  on  hand. 
I  don't  think  that  ought  to  exceed  20  per  cent,  or,  counting  off  1  per 
cent  from  5,  making  it  4,  gives  a  working  capital  of  20  per  cent. 

At  the  end  of  the  sixth  year  our  total  sum  of  principal  and  inter- 
est would  be  $282,556,000. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  Right  there,  Mr.  Elaine,  that  is  made  up  of  your 
original  appropriation  of  $250,000,000  plus  what  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Accumulative  interest. 

Mr.  BANKHEAD.  One  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Four  per  cent.  The  bonds  draw  5  per  cent,  but  all 
the  money  will  not  be  working  all  the  time,  so  I  allow  4  per  cent 
return — average  return — although  the  bonds  themselves  draw  5  per 
cent. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  is  accumulated  interest  on  what  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Accumulated  interest  on  the  money  advanced  by 
the  Government,  because  it  is  being  invested. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  $20,000,000  for  the  year  1922. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  That  $20.000.000  would  be  drawing  interest  for  six 
years. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  But  that  interest  would  not  be  available. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  At  4  per  cent. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  At  4  per  cent.     I  calculated  an  average  of  4  per  cent. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Drawing  interest  from  whom  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  From  the  districts. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  But  if  you  capitalize  the  interest,  that  money 
would  not  be  available. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  We  are  calculating  it  in  the  sale  of  bonds.  It  comes 
back  in  time.  We  calculate  the  bonds  in  the  smaller  projects  will 
be  available  for  sale,  say,  in  six  years.  I  am  quite  well  satisfied  that 
a  good  many'  small  projects  in  the  West  can  be  completed  and  the 
bonds  sold  within  six  years,  or  in  time  to  have  the  funds  available 
for  the  seventh  year. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  ~Do  you  mean  that  $20,000,000  will  be  paid  back  to 
the  Government  eventually  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  4  per  cent  > 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  believe  all  this  fund  will  come  back  to  the  Govern- 
ment with  an  average  rate  of  interest  of  4  per  cent.  The  bonds  will 
draw  5  per  cent,  but  there  are  rest  periods.  All  the  money  is  not  all 
the  time  working.  In  other  words,  we  have  a  working  capital.  I  am 
allowing  that  20  per  cent  to  be  on  the  safe  side. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES.         57 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  does  the  bill  contemplate  that  the  interest 
will  first  commence  to  accrue  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  From  the  time  the  money  is  appropriated  to  the 
projects. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  do  not  mean  that  the  Government  will  be  neces- 
sarily repaid  this  $20,000,000  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  4  per  cent 
per  annum  during  the  time  it  is  transferred  from  the  Treasury  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  I  mean  this,  that  at  the  end  of  20  years  this  fund  will 
have  earned  on  an  average  4  per  cent  per  annum. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  But  you  don't  bind  anyone  to  repay  that  $20,000,000 
to  the  Government  at  the  rate  of  4  per  cent  per  annum  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  No,  sir;  but  all  the  interest  that  accumulates  belongs 
to  the  Government  and  ultimately  will  go  to  the  Government;  while 
it  is  turned  over  in  the  meantime  to  the  reclamation  fund,  it  ulti- 
mately, when  all  work  is  finished,  goes  back  to  the  Government, 
principal  plus  interest. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  The  Government  will  only  get  what  is  earned. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  What  is  actually  earned;  yes. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  They  can  not  demand  that  $20,000,000  back  with 
interest  at  the  rate  of  4  per  cent. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  Now,  suppose  I  buy  one  of  these  bonds ;  these  bonds 
draw  5  per  cent  interest.  I  get  that  5  per  cent,  don't  I  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  The  Government  hasn't  anything  to  do  with  that? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  The  Government  has  nothing  to  do  with  it  after  you 
have  bought  it. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  But  in  the  meantime  your  20  per  cent  is  not  active 
and  is  not  drawing  interest  in  the  Federal  Treasury. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  In  the  reclamation  fund. 

Mr.  HAYDEXT.  It  would  be  in  the  general  balances  of  the  Treasury. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  In  the  general  balances  of  the  Treasury,  so  that  they 
are  either  drawing  5  per  cent  interest  or  else  they  hold  the  money. 
So  your  deduction  of  20  per  cent,  it  seems  to  me,  is  rather  strict  in 
the  application  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  am  making  this  calculation  here  just  to  show  what, 
in  my  opinion,  will  be  the  maximum  fund. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  That  will  actually  occur? 

Mr.  BLATNE.  Yes;  the  maximum  fund  in  the  reclamation  fund. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  But  I  am  endeavoring  to  point  out  the  fact  that 
you  are  not  quite  playing  fair  with  the  bill  when  you  deduct  20  per 
cent,  because  if  the  money  is  not  expended,  then  it  is  in  the  unex- 
pended balances  in  the  Federal  Treasury,  and  they  are  either  drawing 
interest  on  this  money  that  is  advanced,  or  else  they  are  holding 
20  per  cent  of  the  money,  we  will  say,  that  is  not  advanced. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes;  that  is  true. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  So  the  Federal  Treasury  suffers  no  loss,  practically. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  You  are  right. 

The  CHAIRMAN*.  The  bonds  are  not  to  be  sold — they  do  not  sell  the 
bonds  until  certain  conditions  exist,  namely,  that  the  land  within  the 
project  is  more  than  double  the  value  of  the  bonds,  the  bonded 
indebtedness.  Meanwhile  the  bonds  are  drawing  interest;  the  bonds 
are  deposited  with  the  Government  and  interest  accrues  after  the 
bonds  are  deposited  with  the  Government,  and  that  interest  then 
is  paid  in  to  the  Government. 


58         DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IN  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

Mr.  BLATXE.  Into  the  reclamation  fund. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  For  the  reclamation  fund  right  along. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Pending  the  arrival  of  the  time  when  the  bonds 
can  be  sold  and  put  on  the  market  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Then  it  will  be  a  matter  of  bookkeeping  to  ascertain 
how  much  interest  has  accumulated. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  What  Mr.  Elaine  is  trying  to  do  is  just  to  give  us  his 
anticipation. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Of  how  this  bill  is  going  to  work  out. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  I  would  like  to  hear  the  rest  of  his  statement. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Now,  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  year,  if  this  money  that 
goes  in,  or  that  is  appropriated  according  to  the  provisions  of  this 
bill,  is  kept  reasonably  well  invested,  in  my  judgment  the  principal 
and  interest  at  the  end  of  the  first  6-year  period  would  be 
$286,856,000,  and  at  the  end  of  the  second  6-year  period  it  would  be 
$357,813,000,  and  at  the  end  of  the  third  6-year  period  it  would  be 
$452^633,000,  or  a  grand  total  at  the  end  of  18  years  of  $1,092,320,000. 

Now,  we  have  in  the  reclamation  fund  invested  at  the  present  time 
a  net  amount  of  $122,000,000,  and  we  have  an  income  from  the  sale 
of  public  lands,  and  from  the  leases  on  coal  and  oil  lands,  and  coming 
from  the  water  power  bill,  which  in  all  added  together  will  give  us 
probably  around  a  billion  and  a  half  dollars.  That  would  be  your 
condition  in  about  18  years  from  now. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  How  do  you  arrive  at  that  billion  and  a  half  ?  That 
is  a  lot  of  money. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  "Well,  we  get  a  whole  lot  of  it  out  of  this  $250,000,000 
and  a  large  sum  from  present  sources. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  figuring,  Mr.  Elaine,  that  you  will  derive 
from  the  leasing  law  the  same  rate  as  we  are  now  getting  from  the 
leasing  law  ? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  That  we  are  now  estimating  and  not  getting,  should 
not  you  say  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  yes. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  will  be  fair  with  myself  and  fair  with  you.  When 
these  figures  were  made  up  it  was  estimated  that  from  the  sale  of 
public  lands,  the  coal  and  oil  leasing  bill,  we  would  get  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  $15,000,000  a  year,  but  I  don't  believe  we  are  going  to 
get  that  sum. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  may  last  a  few  years  and  then  dwindle  very 
materially. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Senator  Smoot  gave  us  some  information  in  regard 
to  this  matter  of  income.  In  his  opinion,  the  oil  shale  deposits  in 
the  mountains  and  the  phosphate  rocks,  etc.,  out  of  which  we  are 
going  to  derive  a  large  revenue,  I  understand,  will  increase  rather 
than  decrease  in  years  to  come.  He  may  be  right  or  he  may  be  wrong. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  If  they  discover  a  good  process  for  extracting  oil 
from  shale  it  will  increase  very  rapidly,  but  that  has  not  been  per- 
fected vet.  Do  you  know  what  it  costs  them  per  barrel  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Under  this  process  they  use  the  shale,  or  the  heat 
from  the  shale,  to  operate  the  plant,  and  it  is  almost  a  continuous 
operation. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  They  distill  it  I 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES.         59 

Mr.  BLAINE.  They  distill  it,  yes.  It  is  a  heat  process  and  they 
have  got  the  heat  there. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  The  papers  from  time  to  time  carry  news  of  new 
discoveries  and  inventions  for  distilling  oil  from  shale. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  Of  course,  we  have  been  distilling  oil  shales  in  Scot- 
land for  a  long  time,  but  those  shales  are  a  little  different  than  ours; 
the  origin  of  them  is  different,  and  these  shales  in  America  have  been 
so  cracked — by  that  I  mean  the  hydrocarbon  is  locked  up  in  a  dif- 
ferent way  than  the  Scotch  shales,  so  that  it  has  taken  a  great  deal 
of  time  to  work  out  the  problem. 

Mr.  BANKHEAD.  Mr.  Blaine,  have  you  finished  your  explanation 
there  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  No. 

Mr.  BANKHEAD.  I  wanted  to  ask  you,  with  the  permission  of  the 
chairman,  one  or  two  questions  in  connection  with  your  financial 
scheme. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes;  but  before  I  finish  this  I  wish  to  say  that  what  is 
now  in  sight  from  the  lease  of  coal  and  oil  lands  is  not  large  and  we 
can  not  possibly  rely  upon  that  uncertain  source  to  carry  on  the 
projects  that  we  already  have  undertaken — that  the  Government  has 
already  undertaken.  It  would  be  a  mistake  to  rely  upon  that  source 
of  income. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  And  unless  the  receipts  from  the  leasing  bill  were 
very  large,  then  the  grand  total  mentioned  by  you  would  not  be 
reached,  do  I  understand  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  The  grand  total  will  drop  below  what  I  have  said,  but 
this  $250,000,000  I  don't  believe  will  fall  below  my  estimate,  and 
there  will  be  the  return  of  the  $22,000,000  already  invested,  and  there 
will  be  also  a  return  from  the  sale  of  public  lands.  This  is,  of  course,  a 
mere  matter  of  judgment.  But,  anyway,  what  I  was  reaching  to  is 
this,  that  we  ought  to  be  able  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill  to  re- 
claim a  good  many  million  acres  of  land  in  the  West,  anld  if  the 
soldiers  get  one-half  of  it,  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not 
accommodate  within  the  next  20  years  at  least  150,000  soldiers  on  this 
land  in  the  West,  and  we  all  have  unlimited  faith  in  that  land.  In 
my  State  I  know  the  results  of  reclamation;  I  don't  know  how  the 
soldier  could  be  better  benefited  than  to  give  him  a  chance  to  pur- 
chase a  small  piece  of  reclaimed  land  out  in  my  State.  I  know  that 
is  true  of  California,  Idaho,  and  Oregon,  and  I  am  sure  it  is  true  of  such 
districts  as  Greeley,  Colo.,  Rocky  Ford,  and  places  like  that.  I  think 
it  is  generally  true  in  the  West. 

So,  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  if  carried  out,  I  think  we  have 
a  chance  here  to  accommodate  150,000  soldiers'  families  at  least  and 
a  large  number  of  other  settlers  on  reclaimed  lands  in  the  West. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  I  believe  that  your  estimate  of  half  of  the  benefits 
going  to  returned  soldiers  is  exceedingly  low,  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
under  every  reclamation  project  opening  thus  far — of  course,  the 
areas  have  been  small — there  have  been  10  soldiers  seeking  a  farm 
where  one  could  be  given. 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Ten  to  50  to  every  farm,  that  is  right.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  think  it  would  be  in  line  of  good  public  policy  not  to  put 
solid  blocks  of  soldiers  by  themselves.  There  would  probably  be 
too  many  unmarried  men  out  there  on  the  land,  but  we  should  mix 
them  with  the  people  with  families. 


60         DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  are  you  going  to  regulate  that?  How  will 
you  arrange  that,  not  contemplating  too  many  soldiers  in  one  block  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Well,  I  think  that  this  bill  will  work  out  fairly  well. 
It  contemplates  taking  up  privately  owned  lands,  and  if  the  soldiers 
get  50  per  cent  of  the  lands,  and' it  is  up  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  whether  he  will  undertake  the  project  unless  conditions  are 
right. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  There  can  be  no  question  of  public  policy  involved 
in  concentrating  ex-soldiers  on  a  reclamation  project.  If  the  returned 
soldiers  have  the  preference  right  of  entry  for  any  period  of  time 
they  are  sure  to  select  the  best  land  that  there  is  on  'the  project. 
Congress  wants  to  give  the  best  that  there  is  to  them  on  account  of 
their  military  service.  Now,  naturally  the  best  land  will  be  in  con- 
tiguous bodies  and  will  be  selected  in  that  way.  Whether  they  are 
single  men  or  married  men  does  not  make  any  difference.  The 
population  in  my  State  has  been  about  60  per  cent  men  and  40  per 
cent  women,  merely  because  adventurous  young  men  did  the 
pioneering,  but  that  condition  is  gradually  changing,  as  it  is  all  over 
the  West.  They  send  for  their  relatives  and  friends  and  get  married, 
and  ultimately  there  is  no  doubt  but  what  the  proportion  of  men  and 
women  in  Arizona  will  be  the  same  as  it  is  all  over  the  United  States. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  I  don't  wish  to  inject  any  hilarity  into  tiiis  meeting 
but  I  might  make  the  suggestion  that  if  my  friend  thinks  there  is  any 
great  danger  of  that  conmtion  arising  of  too  many  men  being  out  there 
and  too  few  women,  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  in  some  of  these 
manufacturing  towns  up  in  Massachusetts  there  is  about  20  per  cent 
more  women  than  men  working  at  starvation  wages,  and  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  Government  maintains  an  employment  agency  and 
such  things,  I  don't  think  it  would  be  a  great  additional  burden  if, 
coupled  with  some  of  these  employment  agencies,  they  would  under- 
take a  bureau  of  marriage  or  something  like  that  and  let-  some  of  these 
unattached  soldiers  that  get  out  there,  or  any  other  bachelor  of  good 
standing,  make  application  and  have  the  application  sent  over  "hero 
to  Massachusetts  somewhere  where  the  congested  female  population 
exists,  and  send  them  down  into  these  States. 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  do  not  pose  as  an  authority  on  matrimony,  do 
you.  Mr.  Herrick?  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  HERRICK.  No;  I  am  merely  making  that  suggestion.  We 
have  in  my  State  what  we  call  an  order  of  brotherhood  laws.  Any 
bachelor  over  25  years  of  age  that  has  had  one  or  more  misfortunes  is 
eligible  to  membership  in  good  standing,  and  I  am  a  member  mysc-lf. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  Mr.  Blaine,  have  you  finished  your  presenta- 
tion here  of  this  bill  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  I  am  through  the  bill,  unless  there  are  some  questions 
to  be  asked. 

Mr.  BANKHEAD.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  connection  with  this  financial 
scheme,  which  of  course  is  very  important  for  us  to  consider,  I  would 
like  to  ask  Mr.  Blaine  just  a  few  questions. 

As  I  understood  you,  Mr.  Blaine,  you  say  that  under  the  theory 
that  you  propose  in  this  bill,  the  Government  will  ultimately  be  repaid 
the  investment  with  interest  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes;  that  is  provided  for  in  here. 

Mr.  BANKHEAD.  How  long  do  you  estimate  it  will  take,  under  the 
operations  of  your  bill  for  the  Government  to  be  finally  reimbursed  ? 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED  STATES.         61 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  At  the  end  of — in  1942  the  bill  provides  that  the 
Government  is  to  be  paid  back  at  the  rate  of  $50,000,000  a  year. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  How  are  you  going  to  derive  the  funds  to  pay 
back  this  appropriation  with  interest '? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  At  the  end  of  that  time  we  won't  need  all  the  funds 
to  be  accumulated  by  the  sale  of  district  bonds,  the  paying  up  of  the 
obligations. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  Your  bill,  then,  does  not  contemplate  the  con- 
tinuous process  of  new  projects  from  the  funds  to  be  derived  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Xo;  if  we  reclaim  as  much  land  as  we  think  we  can 
under  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  we  will  have  it  all  cleaned  up  in 
about  25  years  from  now  in  the  West. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  Well,  now,  Mr.  Blaine.  what  is  the  total  amount 
that  the  owner  of  the  property — what  is  the  total  amount  of  interest 
under  your  scheme  that  the  owner  of  the  property  in  the  bond 
districts  will  have  to  pay  annually  1 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Five  per  cent. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  And  you  think  you  can  make  a  work  sheet,  a  trial 
balance  whereby,  with  the  payment  only  of  5  per  cent,  you  can  pay 
back  this  appropriation  with  interest  by  1942  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Xo:  not  all  of  it.     We  commence  paying  back  in  1942. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  What  proportion  of  this  ultimate  repayment  do 
you  figure  from  outside  sources,  other  than  the  interest  on  tne  bonds  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Well,  the  principal  will  come  back.  You  see  you 
clean  up  a  good  many  of  your'projects  within  short  term  of  years. 
They  will  be  cleaned  up,  the  bonds  of  the  projects  will  be  sold. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  You  do  not  contemplate  the  payment  of  any  part 
of  this  advancement  by  the  Government  out  of  the  receipts  from  oil 
leases  and  other  sources  of  revenue  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Xo;  that  is  a  special  fund  that  is  coming  into  the 
reclamation  fund,  and  we  are  not  disturbing  that  by  this  bill.  This 
is  an  enlargement  of  that  fund.  This  law  is  an  extension  of  the 
present  reclamation  law  largely. 

Mr.  .SMITH.  I  think  I  can  answer  Mr.  Bankhead. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Just  a  moment,  if  you  please,  Mr.  Smith;  he  spoke 
of  "with  interest."  It  is  only  earned  interest  that  the  Government 
is  repaying. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  That  is  all,  only  what  interest  is  earned.  If  it  doesn't 
earn  interest,  the  Government  doesn't  get  interest;  but  I  feel  quite 
confident  that  the  Government  will  get  the  principal  back  plus  4 
per  cent  interest. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Now,  commencing  in  1942,  according  to  section  16, 
you  must  have  at  that  date  in  this  fund  $50,000,000  from  the  proceeds 
of  bond  sales. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Xow,  I  wish  you  would  explain  just  how  we  are 
going  to  have  that  much  bond  sales  at  that  particular  time. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  At  that  tune  I  should  think  we  should  have  more, 
because  there  will  be  so  many  projects  completed  several  years  prior 
to  1942. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  But  the  projects  are  not  paying  anything  into  the 
fund. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  But  the  fund  will  be  accumulating;  the  reclamation 
.fund  will  be  receiving  the  money. 


62         DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX   THE    UNITED   STATES. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  You  are  not  paring  anything  from  the  reclamation 
fund  proper,  the  present  reclamation  fund.  That  is  left  intact. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  That  is  left  intact:  res,  sir. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  But  what  I  was  trying  to  get  at  is,  where  are  3-011 
going  to  get  the  $50.000,000  in  this  fund  in  the  rear  1942  > 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  All  right,  we  start  at  the  end  of  six  rears,  or  seren 
years;  we  hare  expended  our  capital  sum  of  $250, 000,000  in  projects. 
Now,  that  money  six  years  from  that  time  ought  to  be  coming  back 
in;  or  before  that  .time  we  ought  to  be  able  to  sell  bonds. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  That  doesn't  come  back  in;  you  only  get  the  fund 
enhanced  from  bond  sales. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Yes;  that  is  true,  but  let  me  illustrate.  I  will  illus- 
trate by  my  own  State.  I  am  quite  familiar  with  conditions  there. 
We  hare  in  the  Yakima  Valley  two  projects  that  hare  been  thor- 
oughly inrestigated,  and  I  think  all  the  plans  and  specifications  for 
construction  are  out.  One  will  cost  &5, 000, 000  and  1  think  the  other 
will  cost  $8,000,000  or  $9,000,000.  If  this  bill  should  become  a  law 
I  know  of  no  reason  why  those  projects  could  not  be  completed 
within  two  years  time,  and  at  the  end  of  the  third  rear  I  am  sure  the 
property  within  each  of  those  districts  would  have  twice  the  ralue  of 
the  outstanding  bonds,  at  which  time  those  bonds  will  be  sold  and 
the  proceeds  turned  into  the  reclamation  fund.  I  am  quite  sure  that 
such  conditions  exist  in  other  States  of  the  West.  So  if  that  is  true, 
that  money  comes  into  the  reclamation  fund  and  swells  the  reclama- 
tion fund.  I  am  satisfied  as  the  years  go  by  that  conditions  will 
improre  rather  than  otherwise,  and  if  it  does,  there  should  be  no 
trouble  disposing  of  the  bonds  soon  after  each  project  is  finished. 
If  that  is  true,  at  the  end  of  20  years  we  are  orer  the  peak  of  our 
efforts,  and  we  ought  to  be  receiring  in  from  the  sale  of  bonds  at 
least  $50,000,000  a  year. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  think  I  can  make  an  illustration.  We  hare  expended, 
Mr.  Bankhead,  about  $125,000,000  in  the  construction  of  irrigation 
projects. 

Mr.  BANKHEAD.  Orer  a  period  since  1902  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Since  1902,  yes;  18  years.  There  hare  been  ralues 
created  on  those  projects  of  about  $600,000,000.  If  we  were  able  to 
capitalize  those  projects  as  proposed  under  this  bill  we  could  get 
back  from  the  sale  of  bonds  half  that  amount  at  least,  $300,000,000. 
Unfortunately  this  plan  can  not  be  applied  to  these  Gorernment 
projects,  because  those  settlers  are  not  paring  interest,  but  if  they 
were  paying  interest  they  would  be  just  as  willing  to  owe  prirate 
indiriduals  who  would  buy  the  bonds  as  they  would  to  be  owing  the 
Gorernment.  So  it  would  be  simply  a  matter  of  transferring  the 
mortgage  on  these  lands  from  the  Gorernment  to  prirate  capital. 
The  proceeds  from  the  sale  of  those  bonds  would  repay  all  that  the 
Gorernment  had  advanced  twice  orer.  and  that  is  the  same  process 
that  we  expect  to  apply  to  projects  taken  up  under  this  legislation. 
So  that  we  would  get  back,  if  we  spent  $250,000,000  or  $300,000,000 
and  created  ralues  to  the  amount  of  $1,000,000,000,  it  would  be  very 
easy  to  pay  back  the  money  to  the  Gorernment  at  the  end  of  20 
years  at  the  rate  suggested,  of  $50,000,000  annually. 

Mr.  AREXTZ.  The  statement  was  also  made  here  the  other  day, 
Mr.  Smith,  that  no  project  would  take  longer  than  approximately 
five  years  to  complete;  that  on  the  completion  of  any  project  the  land 


DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED   STATES.         63 

would  be  worth  twice  the  bond  issue,  or  twice  the  cost  of  the  project. 
In  other  words,  the  security  would  be  twice  over  enough  to  pay  off 
the  bonds,  and  then  it  would  be  sold;  so  after  the  six-year  period  the 
bonds  could  be  sold  for  any  given  project.  So  if  we  started  in  1922, 
in  1929,  at  the  very  outside,  the  first  project  bonds  would  be  sold, 
the  money  returned  to  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States  or  to  the 
reclamation  fund.  Now,  then,  take  any  6  or  7  year  period  over  the 
20-year  period  from  now  till  1942;  we  would  have  more  money  than 
$50,000,000  at  the  end  of  1942  to  pay  back  the  first  payment  of 
$50,000,000,  and  each  6-year  period  we  would  have  that  much  more. 

Mr.  BANKHEAD.  Have  you  ever  tried  to  work  that  out  on  paper? 

Mr.  AREXTZ.  I  have  studied  that  out  on  paper;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  To  see  if  it  will  evolve  that  big  sum  of  money 
actually  ? 

Mr.  AREXTZ.  No;  I  haven't  done  that,  because  all  I  have  figured 
on  instead  of  compounding,  I  have  simply  said  4  per  cent  in  20  years 
would  be  $500,000,000  instead  of  $50,000,000. 

Mr.  SMITH.  At  the  end  of  20  years  we  would  owe  the  Government 
$500,000,000,  including  the  interest.  If  we  would  pay  it  back  at  the 
rate  of  $50,000,000  a  year  over  a  period  of  10  years,  the  Government 
would  be  entirely  reimbursed. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  You  take  interest  at  4  per  cent  and  compute  it 
annually  and  add  it  or  compound  it,  and  it  will  double  in  18  or  19 
years. 

I  would  like  to  call  attention  here  to  a  letter  received  from  Carlsbad, 
N.  Mex.,  which  is  in  one  sense  away  off  by  itself.  The  letter  is  from 
the  chamber  of  commerce.  It  gives  the  assessed  valuation  of  the 
farms,  of  the  town,  and  the  public  utilities.  The  farms  have  an 
assessed  valuation  of  $1,423.960;  the  town  has  an  assessed  valuation 
of  $2,000,000;  the  public  utilities,  $300,000;  total,  $3,723,000.  A 
district  will  necessarily  include  the  towns  that  will  grow  up  in  it. 
You  can  see  how  fast  the  town  property  will  add  to  the  value  of  these 
securities,  because  the  power  of  general  taxation  must  exist  to  pay 
these  bonds.  Each  one  of  these  districts  must  have  general  power  of 
taxation. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Is  the  town  property  subject  to  taxation  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  It  would  be  if  it  falls  within  the  district. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  For  the  debts  of  the  district  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Yes;  all  lands  within  the  district,  and  if  the  town 
falls  within  the  district  or  a  new  town  springs  up  within  the  district, 
it  doesn't  make  any  difference  which,  the  property  is  liable. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Theoretically,  but  in  the  practical  operation  of  the 
irrigation  district  laws  are  the  lands  in  the  towns  subject  to  taxation 
for  the  benefit  of  the  district  ? 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  If  it  is  within  the  district  and  is  part  of  the  property 
to  receive  water. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  We  provide  here  that  only  lands  benefited  shall  be 
taxed. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  That  is  true;  but,  for  instance,  within  the  district  a 
town  springs  up — and  they  are  bound  to  spring  up  under  all  these 
projects — the  land  within  the  town  is  liable  to  the  tax. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Take  operation  and  maintenance;  a  town  lot 
gets  no  benefit  from  operation  and  maintenance.  It  might  receive 
some  benefit  possibly,  indirectly,  but  I  don't  think  it  would  receive 


64         DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

any  direct  benefit,  like  deriving  water  for  irrigation.  The  town  lot 
in  the  district,  the  irrigation  district,  gets  no  water  for  irrigation 
purposes,  say,  and  for  the  operation  and  maintenance  in  the  district 
they  have  an  annual  charge. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  But  towns  do  get  water  for  irrigation  purposes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  may  get  it  for  lawns,  and  so  on. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Yes:  but  they  get  it  just  as  much  for  the  garden  as 
the  farmer  gets  it  for  the  farm. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  I  want  to  ask  right  here,  too:  Suppose  a  town 
springs  up  in  this  district,  where  is  it  going  to  get  its  water  for  fire 
protection  if  not  from  the  project  ? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  It  may  get  it  from  wells,  if  it  is  not  too  large  a  town; 
but  it  would  probably  get  a  whole  lot  of  it  from  the  pumps  connected 
with  the  water  supply.  But  the  difficulty  of  that  is  that  in  winter 
the  supply  is  short,  and  generally  they  rely  upon  wells  and  springs. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  time  has  arrived  for  adjournment.  Are  you 
through,  Mr.  Blaine  ? 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Yes;  I  am  through. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  wanted  to  ask  some  questions  on  section  18.  I 
wish  you  would  explain  section  18,  Mr.  Blaine. 

Mr!  ELAINE.  I  wish  you  would  hear  Judge  King  in  regard  to  that 
matter  also. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  We  would  like  to  hear  him,  too.  We  would  like  to 
hear  you  also  on  that,  as  to  the  meaning  of  section  18. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  As  far  as  the  extension  of  those  laws  is  concerned,  I 
will  leave  that  to  Judge  King. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  should  like  your  explanation  in  regard  to  the  pro- 
viso, "that  all  projects  or  units  thereof,  upon  which  actual  construc- 
tion work  shall  be  commenced  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  shall  be 
organized  in  the  manner  provided  herein,  and  all  payments  made 
from  the  reclamation  fund,  and  all  such  work  shall  be  repaid  to  such 
fund  with  interest  in  the  manner  herein  provided,"  out  in  the  West 
in  quite  a  good  many  places  which  I  have  personal  knowledge  of,  a 
general  project  has  already  been  undertaken,  but  units  within  that 
project  have  not  been  undertaken. 

I  mean  under  the  present  reclamation  law. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Uncler  the  present  reclamation  law;  yes.  Now, 
where  a  unit  has  not  been  undertaken  as  yet,  I  see  no  reaso'n  why  that 
unit  should  not  be  constructed  with  the  money  that  we  are  providing 
here  and  made  to  pay  the  interest  charge. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Tnen,  you  mean  that  tney  shall  be  organized  in  the 
manner  provided  herein? 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Well,  that  seems  to  me  indefinite.  There  is  nothing 
here  provided  for  the  organization  of  anything,  except  to  say  before 
they  can  secure  any  money  they  have  to  present  a  petition  to  the 
Secretary,  the  petition  of  a*  district. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  mean  that  they  must  organize  an  irrigation 
district? 

Mr.  BI.ATXK.  An  irrigation  district;  yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  And  tney  can  only  get  money  from  the  reclamation 
fund  under  the  provisions  of  this  ac 


DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE   IN   THE   UNITED   STATES.         65 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  I  think  where  there  is  a  unit — where  the  work  has 
not  been  undertaken — that  they  should  not  get  money  except  that 
they  organize  under  the  provisions  of  this  act. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Then,  you  are  modifying  the  old  reclamation  laws, 
and  I  don't  look  very  favorably,  I  will  tell  you  frankly,  upon  the 
provisions  in  this  section,  because  we  could  not  build  another  irriga- 
tion project  under  the  reclamation  law  unless  somebody  presented 
this  petition  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  We  would  be  practically 
abolishing  and  repealing  the  reclamation  law. 

Mr.  HAYDE*.  I  am  sure  that  Mr  Elaine  had  no  intention  of  doing 
thir  ( 

Mr.  BLAINE.  Xo:  we  had  no  idea  of  doing  that. 
Mr.  SIXXOTT.  I  think  you  are  going  a  whole  lot  further  here  than 
you  ever  intended  to. 

Mr.  BLAIXE.  Well,  I  think  it  will  work  out  all  right.  There  are 
quite  a  good  many  units  that  have  not  been  undertaken.  Xmv.  if 
those  units  are  undertaken  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  it  will 
leave  a  large  sum  of  money  coming  in  from  the  regular  sources  to 
complete  unfinished  project-. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  There  is  one  feature  of  the  bill  that  I  would  like  to 
discuss  with  Mr.  Blaine  when  we  have  time,  and  that  is  the  necessity 
for  mingling  the  funds  to  be  raised  under  the  terms  of  this  act  with 
the  existing  reclamation  funds.  I  am  not  convinced  that  it  is  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  do  so  in  order  to  carry  out  the  plan  proposed  in 
this  bill.  When  we  meet  again.  I  would  like  to  take  up  that  question 
with  you  and  Judge  King  and  other  friends  of  this  bill  to  see  whether 
it  is  not  advisable  to  create  a  separate-  fund  in  the  Treasury,  to  be 
repaid  by  the  sale  of  bonds,  as  provided  in  the  act,  apart  from  the 
existing  reclamation  fund.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  the  two  funds  are 
not  kept  separate  we  may  be  led  into  much  difficulty.  This  is  a 
fundamental  question  which  we  will  have  to  determine. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  On  this  matter  of  future  projects  getting  money  from 
the  reclamation  fund,  and  they  paying  interest,  that  would  lead  to 
the  grossest  discrimination  as  between  States.  There  already  exists 
a  great  disparity  in  the  allotment  of  the  reclamation  funds  among 
the  different  States.  Xow.  I  don't  want  to  make  any  invidious 
comparisons,  but  to  get  my  ideas  clear  on  the  record,  California  has 
been  allotted  about  82,000.000  from  the  reclamation  fund,  Nebraska 
lias  been  allotted  about  $13,000,000,  Nevada  about  88,000,000,  Ore- 
gon about  $8,000,000.  Washington  about  §14,000,000,  Utah  a  little 
over  §3.000,000,  Oklahoma  883^000,  South  Dakota  about  84.000,000, 
Idaho  about  824,000,000. 

Xow.  we  will  take  just  one  comparison.  Take  California,  which 
has  received  §2.000,000.  Idaho  has  received  824.000,000.  Now,  the 
difference  between  the  two  and  the  twenty-four  is  822,000,000. 
Idaho  gets  its  §22,000,000  without  paying  any  interest,  and  we  hope 
some  day  that  the  matter  will  be  evened  up  among  the  other  States; 
and  California,  when  it  catches  up  with  Idaho  and  gets  §22,000,000, 
will  have  to  pay  interest  on  the  §22,000.000.  The  same  would  apply 
between  Nevada  and  Idaho;  Nevada  will  have  to  pav  interest  on 
$16,000,000  that  Idaho  is  not  paying  interest  on  now;  Oregon  would 
have  to  pay  interest  on  $16,000,000,  which  Idaho  does  not  pay,  and  the 
comparison  will  continue  on  down  the  line,  and  therefore  I  don't  think 

5GGG4— 21 5 


66         DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

wo  should  mix  the  reclamation  fund  with  this  fund  and  make  these 
other  States  pay  interest,  when  an  adjoining  State  probably  is  not 
paying  interest  on  a  large  amount  of  money. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question  there,  Mr.  Sinnott.  Do 
you  think  the  money  will  come  in  fast  enough  from  the  present 
sources  in  order  to  equalize  that  ? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  that  I 

Mr.  ELAINE.  Do  you  think  the  money  will  come  in  fast  enough 
from  the  present  sources  to  equalize  that? 

Mr.   SINNOTT.  Well,   that  would  not  change  the  argument   any. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  What  is  your  idea,  then  ? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  My  idea  is  to  keep  this  fund  that  we  are  raising 
under  this  bill  wholly  separate  from  the  reclamation  fund,  as  far  as 
the  interest-bearing  proposition  is  concerned. 

Mr.  ELAINE.  I  know.  Then,  if  you  used  it -in  your  State  and  paid 
the  interest — 

Mr.  SINNOTT  (interposing).  If  we  want  to  come  in  under — if  some 
of  our  projects  want  to  come  in  under  this  act  and  pay  interest,  that 
is  well  and  good;  let  them  do  it,  but  let  that  be  optional  with  them, 
and  should  they  get  money  from  the  reclamation  fund,  don't  make 
them  pay  interest.  That  is  the  hardest  fight  that  we  have  had  since 
I  have  been  in  Congress  —  to  prevent  the  charging  of  interest  on  the 
allotments  from  the  reclamation  fund. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  I  beg  pardon  for  interrupting  you,  but  I  think  that 
if  we  want  to  get  anywhere  with  this  matter  when  we  get  on  the 
floor  of  the  House  we  are  going  to  have  to  make  each  reclamation 
project,  to  at  least  a  certain  extent,  stand  on  its  own  feet,  or  we  are 
going  to  meet  a  lot  of  opposition.  Am  I  right  ? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Before  we  adjourn,  I  want  to  submit  for  the  record 
the  following  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the 
United  States  at  a  recent  meeting  in  Atlantic  City. 

(The  resolution  referred  to  above  follows:) 

Resolutions  adopted  by  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States  at  its 
ninth  annual  meeting,  held  in  Atlantic  City.  X.  J.,  April  27-29,  1921,  on  the  subjects 
of  "Disabled  veterans"  and  "Soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines:" 

DISABLED   VETERANS. 

The  conditions  surrounding  the  hospitalization,  compensation,  and  rehabilitation 
of  the  disabled  veterans  of  the  World  War  have  not  been  adequately  met.  The 
chief  source  of  difficulty  has  been  lack  of  governmental  consolidation  and  centralized 
authority.  This  defect  should  be  remedied  through  consolidation  in  one  depart- 
ment of  the  Bureau  of  War  Risk  Insurance,  the  Rehabilitation  Section  of  the  Board 
for  Vocational  Education,  and  the  part  of  the  Public  Health  Service  which  has  to  do 
with  the  care  and  treatment  of  disabled  veterans.  Moreover,  Congress  should  ap- 
propriate the  funds  necessary  for  a  continuing  and  adequate  hospital-building  pro- 
gram. 

SOLDIERS,    SAILORS,    AND   MARINES. 

The  chamber  deplores  any  tardiness  in  generous  treatment  for  all  who  served  in 
the  armed  forces  amd  who  became  disabled  or  sick  in  consequence  of  their  service, 
and  for  the  widows  and  orphans  of  those  who  lost  their  lives  while  serving  in  the 
armed  forces.  The  chamber  approves  such  constructive  measures  as  may  be  di- 
rectly calculated  to  enable  ex-service  men  to  cultivate  the  soil,  build  homes,  or 
obtain  vocational  education. 

For  the  purpose  of  affording  ex-service  men  an  opportunity  to  cultivate  the  soil, 
we  favor  a  national  system  for  reclamation  of  waste  areas.  Such  a  system  initiated 
through  adequate  Federal  appropriations  can  be  made  a  means  which,  while  pro- 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES.         67 

viding  opportunities  directly  for  former  members  of  the  armed  forces,  will  advance 
the  national  interest. 

The  chamber,  however,  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  a  general  cash  bonus,  or  its 
equivalent  in  certificates,  would  mean  a  very  heavy  increase  in  the  burden  upon  the 
entire  community.  For  this  reason  the  chamber  favors  forms  of  assistance  other 
than  a  cash  bonus. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  submit  for  the  record  at  this  point  a  letter 
from  the  Western  States  Reclamation  Association  dated  May  23, 
1921,  addressed  to  me  as  chairman  of  the  committee: 

WESTERN  STATES  RECLAMATION  ASSOCIATION-. 

Washington,  D.  C.,  May  •>.],  1921. 
Hon.  MOSES  KINKAID, 

Chairman  Irrigation  of  Arid  Lands  Committee. 

House  Office  Building,  Washington.  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  JUDOE  KINKAID:  The  following  telegram  has  just  been  received  by 
Gov.  D.  W.  Davis,  of  Idaho: 

WALLA  WALLA.  WASH. 

A  resolution  has  just  been  adopted  by  the  Interstate  Realty  Association,  Pacific 
Northwest. 

Whereas  irrigation  of  17,000.000  acres  of  arid  lands,  for  which  water  is  available,  is 
contemplated:  Beit 

Resolved,  That  we  indorse  the  object  and  efforts  of  the  governors  of  the  Western 
States  now  in  session  and  pledge  them  our  loyalty  and  support  in  the  important  and 
inspiring  work  of  reclaiming  the  waste  lands  of  Oregon,  Idaho,  Montana,  and  Wyoming, 
the  States  represented  by  this  association. 

IRA  E.  HIGH, 

President. 
FRED  O.  BROCKMAX, 

Secretary. 

ARTHUR  D.  JONES, 
FRANK  McCuLLis, 
JAMES  WATKINS, 

Committee. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

FRANK  W.  BROWN. 

We  will  stand  adjourned  to  meet  on  call  of  the  chairman. 
(Whereupon,  at  12.10  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  IRRIGATION  OF  ARID  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Thursday,  May  26,  1921. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  M.  P.  Kinkaid 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order. 

Mr.  BANKHEAD.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  make  a  little  preliminary 
statement,  which  I  trust  as  a  new  member  I  can  make  with  all  due 
modesty  here.  I  requested  the  chairman  of  the  committee  to  call 
this  special  meeting  in  order  that  we  might  have  the  benefit  of  Mr. 
Ross's  testimony  on  this  land  settlement  proposition.  He  is  a 
gentleman  who  has  had  wide  experience  and  also  a  great  deal  of 
personal  observation  and  has  made  quite  a  profound  study  of  this 
whole  problem,  and  I  have  pending  before  the  committee  a  bill 
(6048).  I  do  not  claim  any  pride  of  authorship  in  it  at  all.  The 
truth  is  that  it  was  prepared  very  largely  by  Mr.  Ross  himself. 

The  new  bill  which  I  have  introduced  includes  some  features  for 
making  short  loans  to  soldiers  that  were  not  included  in  the  original 


68         DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

bill  that  I  introduced.  This  hill  essentially  is  the  same  as  the  Mc- 
Xarv-Smith  bill  in  part  of  its  machinery,  but  6048,  instead  of  provid- 
ing that  the  appropriation  shall  be  used  exclusively  for  States  in  the 
West,  the  arid  lana  States,  provides  a  national  policy,  and  I  wanted 
to  have  Mr.  Ross  to  testify  before  the  committee,  explaining  the 
bill  and  especially  differentiating  the  features  of  this  bill  from  the 
one  that  we  have  had  under  consideration  and  about  which  Mr. 
Elaine  has  testified  before  the  committee.  I  am  sure  that  he  will  be 
able  to  furnish  a  good  deal  of  information  that  will  be  of  value  to  the 
committee  on  the  whole  general  proposition. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  might  add  that  Mr.  Smith  joined  very  heartily 
in  the  request  for  the  meeting  for  the  express  purpose  of  hearing  Mr. 
Ross.  Do  you  wish  to  make  any  statement.  Mr.  Smith  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  wish  to  make  a  statement  with  reference  to  Mr. 
Ross,  especially  for  the  information  of  the  new  members  of  the 
committee.  Mr.  Ross  formerly  resided  in  Idaho  and  was  the  rep- 
resentative of  the  Reclamation  Service  in  undertaking  the  great 
reclamation  projects  out  in  that  country,  and  wa-  witli  the  service 
up  until  about  10  years  ago.  He  is  a  professional  engineer  and  since 
his  separation  from  the  service  has  been  practicing  his  profession 
with  headquarters  at  San  Francisco,  he  also  lias  been  making  in- 
vestigations with  reference  to  available  land  in  other  sections  of  the 
country  that  might  be  made  available  for  settlement  to  a  compara- 
tively smaller  extent.  So  I  think  we  are  forunate  in  having  him  be- 
fore the  committee,  as  he  is  well  versed  in  this  legislation  and  also 
in  land  settlement  problems. 

The  CHAIRMAN*.  The  committee  will  be  glad  to  hear  you.  Mr.  Ross. 
Give  your  residence  and  occupation,  please. 

STATEMENT   OF  MR.   D.   W.   ROSS,   BERKELEY,   CALIF.,   CON- 
SULTING ENGINEER. 

Mr.  Ross.  My  residence  is  Berkeley,  Calif.  I  am  a  consulting 
engineer,  with  special  relation  to  irrigation  and  drainage  problems. 
I  might  state  for  the  benefit  of  the  committee  that  my  experience 
covers  a  period  of  about  thirty  years,  during  which  time  I  have  been 
quite  activelv  connected  with  the  reclamation  and  settlement  of  lands, 
chiefly  in  the  West. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  much  of  that  time  were  you  in  the  employ 
of  the  Government,  in  the  Reclamation  Servic4l 

Mr.  Ross.  Six  vears,  from  the  initiation  of  the  reclamation  work 
until  1908,  and  four  years  prior  to  my  service  with  the  Government 
I  was  State  engineer  of  Idaho,  and  in  1908  I  resigned  from  the  Rec- 
lamation Service  to  become  consulting  engineer  for  a  group  of 
eastern  bankers  that  were  very  largely  interested  in  reclamation 
projects  in  the  West.  I  was  with  them  for  several  years,  and  from 
1916  until  1920  I  was  a  member  of  the  State  Irrigation  Board  of 
California.  So  that  much  of  my  time  during  the  past  -_M  years  has 
been  occupied  in  public  service  where  I  have  become  particularly 
interested  in  irrigation  law  and  irrigation  practice,  the  construction 
of  large  works,  and  consideration  of  the  human  and  financial  pro- 
blems in  connection  with  land  reclamation. 

During  the  past  three  years  I  have  been  especially  interested  in 
land  reclamation  in  the  South.  In  1918,  a  short  time  before  the 


DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES.         69 

armistice,  I  had  charge  for  the  Reclamation  Service  of  investigation  of 
cut-over  and  other  reclaimable  lands  in  a  group  of  the  southern  States, 
with  headquarters  at  New  Orleans. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  that  by  direction  of  Secretary  Lane  ''. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes:  it  was  in  connection  with  Secretary  Lane's  plan 
for  providing  homes  for  returned  soldiers  and  sailors,  and  I  had 
occasion  to  investigate  lands  of  various  kinds  that  were  susceptible 
of  reclamation  in  six  or  seven  of  the  southern  States,  and  I  reported 
on  something  over  10.000,000  acres  of  such  lands. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  bill  (H.  R.  6048)  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes:  I  am  pretty  well  acquainted  with  it.  In  fact,  I 
have  been  very  deeply  interested  in  this  and  other  proposed  reclama- 
tion legislation  that  has  been  before  Congress  for  the  past  four  or 
five  years.  Having  known  Mr.  Smith  for  many  years  in  Idaho,  I  very 
naturally  followed  with  a  good  deal  of  interest  the  bills  that  he  pro- 
posed from  time  to  time,  and  he  was  kind  enough  to  refer  those  bills 
to  me,  although  I  was  not  a  citizen  of  his  State  at  the  time,  and  we 
had  a  good  many  conferences  in  connection  with  them,  and  I  became 
very  well  acquainted  with  what  is  popularly  known  as  the  Smith- 
Chamberlain  bill,  the  Smith-Fletcher  bill,  and  the  Smith-McNary 
bill,  one  of  the  measures  now  pending.  Those  bills  are  very  closely 
related — that  is,  there  is  a  common  financial  plan  running  through  all 
of  them.  This  bill,  6048,  introduced  by  Mr.  Bankhead,  is  verv  similar 
to  the  McNary  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  similar  to  the  McXarv  bill,  which  means  it  is 
the  same  as  H.  R.  2913,  the  Smith  bill  here '( 

Mr.  Ross.  I  haven't  a  copy  of  the  Smith  bill.  It  is  the  same,  how- 
ever. I  have  Senator  McXary's  bill,  536,  which  I  understand  is 
identical. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  same  bill  as  H.  R.  2913,  the  Smith  bill. 

Mr.  Ross.  There  are  two  chief  differences  between  Mr.  Bankhead's 
bill  and  Mr.  Smith's  bill.  Mr.  Smith's  bill  is  limited  in  its  operations 
to  the  West,  inasmuch  as  it  provides  only  for  the  reclamation  of  lands 
by  irrigation.  The  Bankhead  bill — that  is.  bill  6048 — provides  for  the 
reclamation  of  land  by  all  methods  of  reclamation.  Hence  it  would 
have  general  application  throughout  the  United  States. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  While  you  are  speaking  of  those  bills,  other  than 
6048,  I  deem  it  proper  to  call  to  your  attention,  or  inquire  of  you, 
whether  you  became  acquainted  with  the  Smoot  bill  which  passed 
the  Senate  in  the  last  Congress  and  was  favorably  reported  by  this 
committee  and  came  to  the  House,  and  we  had  a  brief  hearing  or  two 
in  the  House,  but  never  were  accorded  time  to  secure  a  final  vote  on 
the  bill.  That  bill,  anyhow,  provides  for  reclamation  in  several  re- 
spects— reclamation  by  surface  irrigation,  reclamation  by  drainage 
of  swamp  lands,  the  clearing  of  cut-over  lands,  refertilization  of  worn- 
out  lands,  and  reclamation  in  general.  Did  you  become  acquainted 
with  that  bill  which  was  reintroduced  in  this  Congress,  the  same 
measure,  now  H.  R.  3728?  Did  you  ever  become  acquainted  with 
that  bill  known  as  the  Smoot  bill  ?' 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes,  I  followed  that  bill  with  a  good  deal  of  interest. 
I  made  a  pretty  careful  study  of  its  provisions. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  provides  for  reclamation  in  general. 
Mr.  Ross.  Well,  as  I  understand  the  Smoot  bill,  the  United  States 
will  simply  assume  a  supervisory  relation  to  the  work. 


70         DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  Ross.  The  projects  will  have  to  be  financed  privately. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  right.     That  is  the  distinguishing  feature. 

Mr.  Ross.  It  has  not  very  much  connection  with  tliese  two  schemes 
that  are  now  under  consideration,  the  Smith  bill  and  the  Bankhead 
bill. 

Mr.  BANKHEAD.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  merits  of  the  Smoot 
bill  ?  I  would  like  to  get  your  expression  on  it,  as  far  as  reporting  a 
definite  and  substantial  scheme  of  reclamation. 

Mr.  Ross.  While  I  believe  much  will  be  accomplished  under  its 
provisions,  I  do  not  think  it  will  lay  the  foundation  for  what  we 
think  of  and  speak  of  as  a  national  reclamation  policy.  I  don't 
know  that  any  other  government  in  the  world  has  adopted  such 
means  for  carrying  on  work  of  this  kind.  As  I  said  before,  the 
United  States  is  authorized  under  its  provisions  to  supervise  work 
that  will  have  to  be  financed  through  the  ordinary  agencies. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  The  Smoot  bill,  Mr.  Ross,  is  chiefly  in  aid  of 
private  corporations,  is  it  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Private  lands. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes,  it  would  be  private  lands.  The  fact  of  the  case  is, 
we  have  been  engaged  in  the  West,  as  in  other  parts  ot  the  country, 
chiefly  in  the  reclamation  of  private  lands,  practically  all  private 
lands.  There  are  not  so  very  many  Government  lands  any  more 
that  are  reclaimabje:  they  are  nearly  all  in  private  ownership. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  suppose.  Mr.  Ross,  there  should  be  a  demand 
by  private  landowners,  a  considerable  demand,  for  the  assistance 
merely  of  the  Federal  Government,  supervision  by  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, on  account  of  the  Government  having  experienced  reclama- 
tion engineers,  in  the  development  of  irrigation  lands  to  which  the 
title  has  passed,  land  which  belongs  to  individuals,  and  that  the 
National  Government  is  not  disposed  to  furnish  money  by  which  to 
carrv  on  such  development  or  such  reclamation,  what  would  you 
think  of  the  Smoot  bill  for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Well,  in  theory  it  is  all  right:  in  practice  I  have  always 
had  serious  doubts  of  many  communities  or  corporations  calling 
upon  the  Government  for  supervision  of  the  expenditure  of  their 
funds. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question  right  there. 

Mr.  Ross.  And  I  am  taking  the  practical  view  of  it  in  the  light  of 
my  experience. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  here  the  Government  has  made  a  success 
under  the  national  irrigation  law.  and  that  success  now  is  due — the 
success  attained  is  due  to  the  efficiency  of  the  skill  of  the  experienced 
engineers,  so  that  the  national  reclamation  projects  have  a  standing 
with  the  public:  whereas,  you  are  aware  of  the  fact,  I  feel  confident 
that  the  private  projects  which  were  developed  years  ago,  developed 
by  private  enterprise,  the  engineering  was  not,  as  a  rule,  so  successful 
as  that  under  the  Government  reclamation  law.  and  the  bonds  which 
were  issued  and  placed  upon  the  market  in  some  instances — -a.  good 
many.  1  should  say — failed.  So  that  those  private  projects,  de- 
veloped by  private  capital  and  having  no  assistance  from  the  Govern- 
ment whatever,  were  not,  as  a  rule,  successful. 

Mr.  Ross.  I  will  agree  with  you.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  your  observa- 
tions would  apply,  say,  to  the  conditions  20  years  ago,  and  perhaps 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES.         71 

within  more  recent  times,  but  to-day  practically  all  of  the  Western 
States  have  amended  their  irrigation  laws  and  have  safeguarded  the 
standing  of  the  bonds,  so  that  in  several  States  the  bonds  are  selling 
right  now  at  a  premium  and  have  been  for  some  time  past — irrigation 
district  bonds — and  in  most  of  the  Southern  States,  as  far  as  I  have 
observed,  those  bonds  have  been  selling  at  par. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  say  irrigation  bonds  in  some  of  the  States  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  No;  I  mean  drainage  district  bonds.  Such  districts 
operate  under  laws  very  similar  to  the  irrigation  district  laws,  drainage 
districts  have  practically  the  same  powers.  My  observation  is,  too, 
that  there  are  fewer  mistakes  being  made  by  engineers  to-day  than 
there  were  a  few  years  ago.  I  think  it  is  largely  due  to  the  splendid 
examples  that  have  been  set  by  the  Reclamation  Service.  They 
have  adopted  a  much  higher  standard  of  engineering  than  was 
practiced  20  or  25  years  ago.  Of  course,  as  a  consequence  of  this 
works  are  to-day  costing  very  much  more;  reclamation  by  every 
means  is  costing  more  to-day  'than  it  did  20  years  ago,  because  the 
work  is  being  done  better,  better  plans  are  followed  and  more  perma- 
nent works  are  being  constructed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  worth  more  because  it  is  being  done  better? 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  desire  to  ask  Mr.  Ross  one  question  in  relation  to 
the  sale  of  the  bonds  at  par. 

Is  it  your  observation  that  the  bonds  are  sold  by  the  district  at 
par,  or  do  you  mean  they  are  sold  by  the  promoter  or  the  first  pur- 
chaser of  the  bonds  to  the  public  at  par? 

Mr.  Ross.  You  refer  to  district  bonds  ? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Yes;  irrigation  district  bonds.  My  observation  is 
that  they  are  not  sold  by  the  district  at  par,  but  the  bond  house 
generally  buys  them  up  at  a  discount  and  then  the  bond  house  some 
times  sells  them  at  par,  and  in  some  cases  at  a  premium.  That  has 
been  my  observation. 

Mr.  Ross.  In  California  during  the  last  five  years  several  districts 
have  sold  their  bonds  at  par  and  some  at  a  premium. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Irrigation  districts  ( 

Mr.  Ross.  Irrigation  districts  bonds;  yes.  Under  the  present 
policy  the  State  of  Oregon,  where  the  State  has  guaranteed  the 
interest  on  bonds,  I  think  for  the  first  five  years,  those  bonds,  I  under- 
stand, are  to-day  selling  at  a  premium — at'least  they  are  selling  at  par. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Bearing  what  rate  of  interest  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  I  think  they  are  6  per  cent. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Six  per  cent  bonds  ? 

Mr.  Ross..  The  California  bonds  are  all  6  per  cent  bonds. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  know  where  they  have  been  sold  by  the  bond 
houses  at  a  premium,  but  not  by  the  district.  The  district  did  not  get 
a  premium  or  in  a  majoritv  of  cases  did  not  even  get  par. 

Mr.  BANKHEAD.  Now,  if  it  is  agreeable,  I  would  like  for  Mr.  Ross 
to  have  the  privilege  for  a  while  of  explaining  the  differences  between 
these  two  measures. 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  what  I  was  going  to  ask  Mr.  Ross  to  go 
right  ahead  m  his  own  wav  on  Mr.  Bankhead's  bill  and  Mr.  Smith's 
bill. 

Mr.  Ross.  In  the  Bankhead  bill  an  effort  has  been  made  to  take  the 
fullest  advantage  of  existing  land  credit  devices  that  have  been  pro- 


72         DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX    THE    UNITED    STATES. 

vided  by  national  and  State  legislation.  The  land  credit  device  that 
relates  particularly  to  work  contemplated  under  the  provisions  of  this 
bill — that  is.  provided  by  State  legislation — is  the  irrigation  or  drain- 
age district,  with  power  to  incur  indebtedness,  issue  bonds,  and  levy 
taxes  for  the  repayment  of  its  bonds.  The  land  credit  device  that  is 
provided  by  Federal  law  is  the  Federal  land  bank.  That  is  made  use 
of  in  the  repayment  of  loans,  the  loans  which  are  provided  in  connec- 
tion with  the  settlement  of  veterans  on  the  land. 

In  order  to  make  the  fullest  use  of  the  district,  the  Bankhead  bill 
provides  for  a  bond  that  shall  be  paid  under  an  amortization  plan 
over  a  period  not  exceeding  40  years.  Now,  by  providing  for  that 
kind  of  a  bond  the  landowner  is  enabled  to  pay  the  cost  of  reclama- 
tion through  the  payment  of  a  minimum  annual  installment.  A  5 
per  cent  bond  will  be  issued  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  and  by 
the  payment  of  1  per  cent  for  the  amortization  of  the  debt  the  bonds 
can  be  repaid  over  a  period  of  about  35  years:  that  is.  by  the  pay- 
ment of  a  total  of  6  per  cent  each  year. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Six  per  cent  of  the  principal  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Of  the  principal  each  year. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  That  includes  the  interest  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes:  that  will  include  the  interest. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  In  how  many  years  will  that  pay  off  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  In  about  35  years.  Then,  in  order  that  the  repay- 
ment— 

Mr.  HUDSPETH  (interposing).  Pardon  me,  right  there.  Mr.  Ross. 
That  is  the  same  plan  as  the  joint-stock  land  banks  loan  their 
money  on. 

Mr.  Ross.  It  is  practically  the  same  basis  for  repayment  of  the 
cost  of  reclamation  as  the  farmer  repays  his  loan  from  the  Federal 
land  bank. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  That  is  paid  in  33  years. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes.  Then  in  order  that  the  scheme  for  the  repayment 
of  the  appropriation  may  dovetail  with  the  repayment  of  the  district 
bonds,  so  there  will  be  absolutely  no  question  about  the  repayment 
of  whatever  advances  may  he  made  for  the  construction  of  works  in 
any  district  that  is  organized,  the  payment  of  such  advances  shall 
begin  10  years  after  the  completion  of  the  work. 

Mr.  SIN:XOTT.  You  mean  the  repayment  to  the  Government  '( 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes:  the  repayment  to  the  Government.  And  that  also 
is  repaid  under  an  amortization  plan,  and  the  Bankhead  bill  pro- 
vides for  the  repayment  of  such  debt  over  a  period  of  about  40  years 
with  4  per  cent  interest.  And  provision  is  also  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  such  interest  as  might  accrue  from  the  date  of  all  advances 
until  the  district  begins  the  payment  of  these  annual  installments. 
This  is  done  by  adding  1  per  cent  to  the  installment,  which  will  begin 
about  the  fifteenth  year,  or  10  years  after  construction  is  completed. 
So,  upon  the  payment  annually  by  the  district  of  6  per  cent,  which 
will  be  4  per  cent  interest  and  1  per  cent  for  amortization,  and  1  per 
cent  to  include  such  accrued  interest,  the  debt  will  be  liquidated  in 
about  40  years. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  What  is  that  total  now  of  the  principal  when  you 
get  on  to  that  period,  7  per  cent  each  year  ( 

Mr.  Ross.  Xo:  the  district  will  pay  into  the  fund  for  the  repay- 
ment of  its  bonds,  6  per  cent,  5  per  cent  interest  and  1  per  cent 


DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX    THE    UXITED   STATES.         73 

amortization.  The  fund  will  repay  the  appropriation  upon  the 
payment  of  1  per  cent  for  amortization,  1  per  cent  to  include  the 
accrued  interest  and  4  per  cent  interest.  So,  upon  the  payment  of 
6  per  cent  on  whatever  advances  might  have  been  made  to  a  project, 
beginning  about  the  fifteenth  year  and  continuing  for  about  40  years, 
the  appropriation  will  be  repaid. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD._  With  interest  ( 

Mr.  Ross.  With  interest. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Will  that  also  take  care  of  the  bonds  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Xo:  that  is  a  matter  separate  from  the  bonds. 

Xow  if  you  will  let  me  explain  how  this  fund  is  to  be  turned  over 
and  used  for  the  reclamation  of  other  lands.  The  bill  provides  that 
the  estimates  of  the  cost  of  construction  shall  include  the  interest 
which  would  accrue  during  the  period  of  construction.  If  we  assume 
that  the  period  of  construction  will  average  about  four  years,  then 
the  interest  that  would  accrue  during  that  period  would  be  about 
10  per  cent — that  is,  it  would  be  about  5  per  cent  interest  on  the 
entire  amount  of  the  advance  for  two  years;  then  bonds  would  be 
issued  by  the  district  for  an  amount  equal  to  110  per  cent  of  the 
money  actually  advanced  on  construction.  For  each  $100  of  money 
actually  advanced  the  district  would  issue  bonds  amounting  to  SI  10. 
The  $100  would  be  available  for  sale — 

Mr.  SIXXOTT  (interposing).  Is  that  what  you  call  capitalizing  the 
interest  ( 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes.  The  8100  would  be  available  for  sale,  the  $10 
being  retained  in  the  fund.  The  payments  on  the  SI 00  would  be 
paid  to  the  purchasers  of  such  bonds:  while  the  payments  on  the  $10, 
which  the  fund  would  retain,  would  be  paid  into  the  fund.  Xow 
then,  a  further  fund  is  provided  to  insure  the  repayment  of  the  appro- 
priation by  levying  an  annual  assessment  of  1  per  cent  upon  the  total 
cost  of  the  works  of  each  district.  This  1  per  cent  would  be  levied 
on  the  110  per  cent  of  bonds.  So  that  in  the  case  of  a  million  dollar 
appropriation  for  a  project,  SI, 100, 000  worth  of  bonds  would  be 
issued  by  such  project.  One  million  dollars  of  that  would  be  avail- 
able for  sale  to  the  investing  public,  the  proceeds  to  be  turned  back 
into  the  fund  to  be  used  for  another  project.  One  hundred  thousand 
dollars  would  be  retained  in  the  fund  and  there  would  be  paid  on  that 
S100.000  each  year  S6.000  to  amortize  it.  This  revenue  will  be  paid 
into  the  fund.  There  would  be  paid  in  addition  to  that  by  the 
district  1  per  cent,  which  would  be  SI  1,000.  Xow.  by  providing 
that  the  repayment  of  the  appropriation  shall  not  begin  until  10 
years  after  the  completion  of  the  work,  which  would  be  about  the 
fifteenth  year,  there  will  have  accrued  up  to  such  time  an  amount 
sufficient  to  insure  the  payment  of  all  installments  on  the  appro- 
priation regularly  from  this  time  on.  In  fact,  the  revenue  from  the 
two  surces  that  I  have  mentioned  would  gradually  gain  upon  the 
amounts  due  for  the  repayment  of  the  appropriation  until  at  the  end 
of  the  period  there  would  be  a  very  substantial  surplus. 

Mr.  LYOX.  Does  the  bill  provide,  Mr.  Ross,  that  that  amount 
paid  in  would  be  reinvested  '( 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes;  it  may  be  reinvested. 

Mr.  LYOX.  In  other  words,  you  would  have  S16,000  the  first  year 
to  reinvest  ? 


74         DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UXITED   STATES. 

Mr.  Ross.  You  could  reinvest  it :  yes.  My  estimates  are  based 
upon  simple  interest,  so  it  is  perfectly  safe,  and  I  find  that  there  is 
a  very  substantial  margin. 

The  bill  also  provides  that  each  project  will  be  a  separate  unit; 
that  is,  each  project  will  repay  its  indebtedness  into  the  fund,  but  the 
fund  which  will  be  administered  by  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board, 
will  pay  the  indebtedness  of  all  projects,  you  understand,  so  that 
each  project  will  stand  upon  its  own  bottom:  that  is,  project  Xo. 
1  will  repay  into  the  fund  whatever  amount  may  have  been  appro- 
priated by  Congress  for  its  construction,  and  the' repayment  of  such 
amount  will  be  shared  by  all  other  projects  which  might  originate 
from  the  sale  of  the  bonds  issued  against  project  No.  1,  and  then  the 
next  project,  and  so  on. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Project  Xo.  1  would  be  separate  from  any  obliga- 
tion to  project  Xo.  2  or  Xo.  3  '( 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes:  they  would  stand  absolutely  in  the  clear,  but  such 
surplus  as  would  result  from  each  project  would  find  lodgment  in 
the  fund  and  would  be  available  to  make  up  any  deficiency  or  meet 
the  unexpected  at  any  time.  But  each  project  will  pay  out  separately, 
just  as  a  farmer  will  repay  his  loan  separately,  although  his  mort- 
gage may  be  included  with  a  block  of  mortgages  which  serve  as  a 
basis  for  an  issue  of  bonds  by  the  Federal  land  bank.  By  such 
means  we  have  made,  I  think,  the  fullest  use  of  the  credit  device  that 
we  now  have.  By  providing  that  district  bonds  shall  be  5  per  cent 
bonds  and  shall  be  paid  under  an  amortization  plan,  all  district 
bonds  will«be  exactly  the  same.  The  State  law  will  of  course  have 
to  be  amended  to  authorize  the  issuing  of  the  kind  of  bond  which 
this  bill  provides  for  such  projects  as  the  Government  might  under- 
take in  any  State,  so  that  we  will  have  uniform  bonds.  The  market 
will  become  acquainted  with  such  bonds  and  the  investing  public 
will  not  be  puzzled  to  know  whether  a  bond  is  a  15  or  30  year  bond 
or  how  its  principal  is  repaid,  for  they  will  all  be  paid  in  about  35 
years  under  an  amortization  plan. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Do  you  think  the  public  will  take  to  that  bond,  or  is 
that  the  same  kind  of  a  loan  that  the  public  takes  now  under  the 
Federal  farm  loan  act  ( 

Mr.  Ross.  It  will  be  practically  the  same:  yes.  I  think  there  will 
be  no  question  about  that  at  all.  I  should  think  it  would  be  a  very 
attractive  form  of  investment  for  insurance  and  trust  funds  and  other 
funds  of  that  character. 

Another  feature  of  the  bill  is  the  provision  for  settlement  of  lands 
by  veterans.  If  you  will  turn  to  section  15.  you  will  see  that  the 
Secretary  is  given  authority  to  prepare  the  land  for  cultivation — that 
is.  any  land  that  i-^  available  for  entry  or  purchase  by  veterans.  He 
may  prepare  such  land  for  cultivation  and  may  place  other  improve- 
ments upon  it  aside  from  the  mere  reclamation  of  the  land.  But  in 
the  case  of  such  improvements,  other  than  cultivation,  they  shall  be 
paid  for  by  the  State  or  some  other  agency.  This  lays  a  foundation 
for  a  policy  of  cooperation  between  States  and  the  Government  in 
connection' with  the  settlement  of  veterans  on  the  land. 

Then  in  section  16  the  Secretary  is  authorized  to  make  short-term 
loans.  If  you  will  observe,  in  that  section  he  is  allowed  considerable 
discretion."  It  says: 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED   STATES.         75 

The  Secretary  shall  by  regulation  prescribe  the  amount  and  kind  of  security  (which 
shall  be  adequate  to  secure  the  loan),  the  terms,  interest,  methods  of  payment  and 
enforcement,  and  other  conditions  of  the  loan. 

He  is  given  quite  large  discretion  there,  but  this  loan  is  designated 
a  short-term  loan. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Is  that  out  of  the  cooperative  reclamation  fund? 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes;  that  would  come  out  of  the  fund.  Then  it  pro- 
vides that  whenever  the  land  of  any  settler  of  a  project  shall  have 
attained  a  sufficient  value  for  the  purpose,  the  settler  shall  repay  all 
or  any  part  of  any  loans  made  by  him,  all  or  any  part  of  the  purchase 
price  of  his  land,  or  the  cost  of  improvements  placed  thereon  by 
authority  of  the  Secretary,  as  he  may  be  directed  by  the  Secretary, 
from  the  proceeds  of  a  long-term  loan  which  the  Secretary  may  nego- 
tiate through  the  Federal  Land  Bank,  or  when  terms  are  as  favorable, 
through  any  other  agency.  Then  the  amount  of  loans  when  repaid, 
together  with  interest  thereon,  shall  be  paid  into  the  fund. 

Xow.  I  think  it  is  very  fair  to  assume  that  such  loans  will  not  run 
for  more  than  two  or  three  years,  and  that  a  value  will  be  attained  in 
two  or  three  years  after  settlement,  so  such  a  long-term  loan  can  be 
made  from  the  Federal  Land  Bank  which  will  liquidate  this  short-term 
loan  and  repay  any  other  loans  that  the  veteran  may  have  made,  or 
in  many  cases  it  would  repay  the  purchase  price  of  the  land,  espe- 
cially where  the  land  is  cheap,  as  it  will  be  in  most  cases. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  What  compulsion  upon  the  settler  do  you  provide  in 
the  bill  to  do  that,  to  compel  him  to  take  that  > 

Mr.  Ross.  He  does  it  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary.  The 
Secretary  would  have  the  power.  It  says.  "  which  the  Secretary  may 
negotiate  through  the  Federal  land  bank." 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  In  case  he  refused  to  do  that,  what  penalties  have 
you  provided  I 

Mr.  Ross.  Well,  I  think.  Mr.  Sinnott,  the  language  here  gives  the 
authority — I  think  we  give  sufficient  authority  to  the  Secretary  for 
the  purpose,  but  in  the  settler's  application  for  a  loan  the  Secretary 
would  without  doubt  have  such  application  contain  a  provision  that 
he  would  replace  such  loan  by  a  long-term  loan  negotiated  from  the 
Federal  land  bank.  I  think  under  the  language  of  the  section  the. 
Secretary  himself  could  do  this. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  Do  you  remember  what  provision  was  made  in 
that  connection  under  the  bonus  bill  that  was  recommended  pro- 
viding for  the  advance  of  short-term  loans  to  soldiers  > 

Mr'.  Ross.  Which  bonus  bill  ? 

Mr.  BAXKHEAU.  The  Moitdell  bill. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  The  Fordney  bill. 

Mi\  BAXKHEAD.  Wasn't  that  left  to  the  Secretary — the  terms  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Xo:  the  Mondell  bill  did  not  contain  a  provision  for  a 
short -term  loan. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  Which  bill  was  that,  Mr.  McRae? 

Mr.  K.  M.  McRAE.  There  was  a  short-term  loan  provision  in  there. 
It  provided  a  loan  of  §2,000  for  the  soldier  settler  on  the  land  for 
the  purchase  of  live  stock  and  equipment. 

Mr.  Ross.  There  were  two  kinds  of  loans  made;  one  was  a  long- 
term  loan  that  was  repaid  along  with  the  land,  and  the  other  a 
shovt-tevm  loan  for  the  purchase  of  livestock  and  equipment. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Is  this  like  the  Taylor  bill  that  was  introduced  three 
years  ago  in  accordance  with  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Lane  ? 


76 /       DEVELOPMENT    OF    AGRICULTURE   IX    THE   UNITED   STATES. 

Mr.  Ross.  I  did  not  catch  your  question. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Is  this  similar  to  the  Taylor  bill  introduced  some  three 
years  ago  in  accordance  with  Mr.  Lane's  suggestion  I  Is  this  like 
that  >. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  Taylor  bill  do  you  mean  ? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Taylor,  of  Colorado.  This  committee  reported 
that  bill  out  favorably. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  was  a  very  brief  bill. 

Mr.  Ross.  I  am  not  acquainted  with  the  Taylor  bill. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  In  pursuance  of  Mr.  Lane's  suggestion,  just  at  the 
close  of  the  Sixty-fifth  Congress  Mr.  Taylor,  chairman  of  this  commit- 
tee, introduced  a  bill  to  take  the  place  of  Mr.  Sinnott's  bill,  at  that 
time  before  us,  which  was  intended,  it  seems  to  me.  to  be  like  this. 
Does  this  spring  from  Mr.  Lane's  suggestion  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes;  it  is  intended  to  embody  those  features. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  It  is  the  same  bill  '( 

Mr.  Ross.  But  it  is  stated  more  briefly  than  the  same  provision 
contained  in  the  Mondell  bill. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  It  is  the  same  thing  as  the  Mondell  bill  ( 

Mr.  Ross.  Substantially  the  same,  excepting  that  this  specifically 
provides  that  the  advance  made  by  the  Secretary  shall  be  a  short- 
term  loan;  then  he  is  authorized  to  repay  the  same  through  the  nego- 
tiation of  a  long-term  loan,  just  as  soon  as  a  sufficient  value  has  been 
established  for  the  purpose. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  keep  your  fund  entirely  separate  from  the  recla- 
mation fund,  do  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes:  I  think  if  you  examine  section  20  you  will  see  that. 
Section  20  is  very  similar  to  a  provision  contained  in  the  Smith- 
McNary  bill. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  say  there  "That  moneys  paid  into  the  fund 
under  this  act  for  completing  the  construction  of  projects  begun  under 
the  terms  and  provisions  of  the  act  of  June  17,  1902,  known  as  the 
reclamation  act."  and  so  on.  "may  be  expended  under  the  provisions 
of  such  reclamation  act."  Where  do  you  provide  in  here  for  the  pay- 
ment of  moneys  into  the  fund  ( 

t  Mr.  Ross.  In  section  17,  the  section  providing  for  the  appropria- 
tion. The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  would  transfer  from  the  Treas- 
ury these  amounts  directly  to  the  fund  created  under  this  bill,  and 
then  the  Secretary  would  have  authority  in  section  20  to  transfer  into 
the  reclamation  fund  such  amounts  as  might  be  needed  for  the  com- 
pletion of  projects  already  begun. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Now  you  say  down  below.  "Provided,  however,  that 
all  reclamation  projects  or  units  thereof  upon  which  actual  construc- 
tion work  shall  be  commenced  after  the  passage  of  this  act."  That  is 
section  20.  Do  vou  mean  that  all  irrigation  projects  begun  from  the 
reclamation  fund  proper  hereafter  shall  come  within  the  provisions  of 
section  20  * 

Mr.  Ross.  Well,  all  reclamation  projects  or  units  thereof  upon 
which  actual  construction  work  shall  have  been  commenced  after  the 
passage  of  this  act.  That  is,  in  case  a  unit  of  an  existing  project 
should  be  begun  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  it  should  be  constructed 
under  the  provisions  of  this  act. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Even  though  the  funds  come  from  the  reclamation 
fund  proper  ? 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES.         77 

Mr.  Ross.  No;  in  that  case  they  would  not.  They  would  come 
from  this  fund  direct. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  And  you  don't  mean  that  shall  apply  to  the  present 
reclamation  fund  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  No;  under  the  provision  it  would  automatically  be  kept 
separate  from  the  present  reclamation  fund. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  The  reclamation  fund,  I  understand,  is  safe- 
guarded so  as  to  guarantee  the  completion  of  all  projects  now  under 
construction  or  contract,  or  approved  under  the  original  reclamation 
act  ?  In  other  words,  the  fund  now  in  the  reclamation  act  will  be 
separate  and  apart  for  the  completion  of  all  projects  now  in  contem- 
plation or  agreed  upon  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes:  by  no  possible  means  could  any  amount  in  the 
reclamation  fund  be  diverted  into  this  fund. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  That  is  a  little  broad,  Mr.  Bankhead,  because  new 
projects,  entirely  new  projects,  may  be  taken  up  under  the  reclama- 
tion fund. 

Mr.  ROSE.  Yes:  but  by  no  possible  means  could  any  money  in  the 
present  reclamation  fund  be  diverted  into  this  fund,  but  the  Secretary 
has  authority  under  this  bill  to  divert  money  from  this  fund  into  the 
present  reclamation  fund  for  the  completion  of  work  already  begun, 
and  of  course,  as  I  understand  this  bill,  once  a  diversion  of  that  kind 
is  made,  it  would  remain  in  the  existing  reclamation  fund,  and  that 
is  why  it  is  necessary  to  make  provision  so  each  project  can  pay  out 
separately;  otherwise  projects  which  are  begun  under  the  provisions 
of  this  act  will  have  assumed  the  repayment  of  the  entire  appropria- 
tion, which  of  course  would  not  be  practicable. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Otherwise  you  would  have  some  States  paying 
interest  on  the  reclamation  fund  and  other  States  not. 

Mr.  Ross.  Only  to  the  extent  to  which  they  would  continue  to 
operate  the  existing  reclamation  law. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  That,  of  course,  is  one  thing  that  I  object  to. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Does  the  Government  put  up  money  under  this  bill 
for  schoolhouses  in  those  districts,  and  the  like  '. 

Mr.  Ross.  It  does  not  so  provide  under  this  bill. 

Mi1.  SIXXOTT.  There  is  a  great  disparity  in  the  allotment  of  recla- 
mation funds  now  in  the  various  States. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  A  disparity  amounting  in  some  cases  to  over 
$20,QOP7090. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  In  what  State  ? 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Well,  there  would  be  between  California  and  Idaho, 
for  instance. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Which  gets  the  more  ? 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  I  don't  think  the  members  from  California — and  I 
know  as  far  as  the  disparity  between  my  State  and  other  States  is 
concerned,  I  would  not  want  to  see  one  State  have  $15,000,000  to 
320,000.000  without  the  payment  of  interest,  and  then  when  it  comes 
time  for  my  State  to  get  my  share  and  even  up  that  disparity,  then 
my  State  must  pay  the  interest.  I  want  to  keep  the  two  funds, 
the  two  projects,  separate. 

Mr.  Ross.  They  would  be  kept  separate. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Now,  there  is  just  one  question  I  want  to  ask  you 
concerning  section  6.  The  bonds  are  not  to  be  sold  until  the  board 
finds  that  the  project  is  twice  the  value  of  the  outstanding  bonds. 


78          DEVELOPMENT    OF   AGRICULTURE    IX    THE    UNITED    STATES. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  What  is  your  experience  in  the  construction  of 
irrigation  projects  as  to  how  long  a  time  it  would  take  before  that 
condition  obtained,  that  the  project  is  double  the  value  of  the 
expenses  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  My  observation  is  that  that  condition  is  established 
almost  by  the  time  the  works  are  completed,  but  in  extreme  c 
within  a  period  of  two  or  three  years  after  the  construction  of  the 
works. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  construction  of  the  works  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  I  mean  completion  of  all  the  works,  the  reclamation 
works. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Read}*  for  operation;  when  it  is  ready  for  opera- 
tion. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes;  when  they  are  ready  for  operation.  That  is  what 
I  mean  by  completion. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  From  the  inauguration  of  the  work,  how  long  a  time 
would  that  be  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  I  am  assuming  that  the  construction  period  would  be 
about  four  years,  but  there  would  be  no  payments  due  during  that 
period,  neither  of  interest  or  principal:  and  then  I  assume  that  by 
the  end  of  the  sixth  year  the  bonds  might  be  sold  under  the  provisions 
of  this  section;  that  the  assessable  property  of  the  district  will  have 
a  value  equal  to  twice  the  face  value  of  the  bonds.  I  think  there  will 
be  very  few  exceptions  to  that. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Well,  there  would  be  a  great  difference  in  districts, 
wouldn't  there  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes;  but  the  six^ear  period  that  is  assumed  provides  a 
very  safe  margin.  In  most  cases  it  would  be  upon  the  completion  of 
the~  works,  that  the  property,  the  assessable  property,  would  be  worth 
twice  the  cost  of  the  works. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  That  period  would  vary  somewhat  according  to  the 
method  of  settling  the  lands  and  disposing  of  any  lands  that  were  not 
taken  up  in  the  regular  process. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes;  that  would  be  a  factor,  and  quite  an  important 
factor,  too. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  For  that  reason  it  would  seem  that  any  of  these  bills 
ought  to  carry  with  them  a  plan  for  the  rather  rapid  settling  up  of  the 
lands,  because  it  would  bring  this  period  for  the  sale  of  the  bonds  at 
an  earlier  date. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes.  Well,  this  bill  places  in  the  hands  of  the  Secretary 
the  same  powers  that  the  McXary  bill  does.  This  bill  differs  from  the 
McXary  bill  only  in  the  features  that  I  have  called  attention  to. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  My  observation,  I  mean,  should  apply  to  this  bill 
and  the  Smith-McNary  bill. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes;  you  are  correct  about  that.  There  is  no  question 
about  it. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  In  your  estimation  of  that  period  of  six  years,  what 
do  you  estimate  the  cost  per  acre  of  the  irrigation  to  be  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Well,  of  course,  that  will  vary  widely;  there  will  be  a 
great  variation  in  cost,  but  I  think  we  will  find  that  $60  per  acre  will 
be  a  pretty  fair  average  cost. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  You  don't  count  the  land  worth  anything  in  that, 
do  you  '( 


DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX    THE    UNITED   STATES.         79 

Mr.  Ross.  Oh,  indeed,  yes,  the  land  is  worth  a  good  deal. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  How  much  of  that  $60  is  the  value  of  the  land  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  The  $60  is  the  cost  of  reclamation. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Then  I  will  ask  you  another  question.  What  does  it 
cost  to  get  the  land  into  shape  so  that  it  returns  something  worth 
while,  including  the  value  of  the  land  when  you  start? 

Mr.  Ross.  Well,  of  course,  there  is  no  uniform  cost:  it  will  vary 
all  the  way  from  $25  an  acre  to  $200  an  acre,  hut  I  estimate  that  $60 
an  acre  will  be  a  pretty  safe  average  cost  of  reclamation  under  the 
provisions  of  this  bill.  That  would  include  drainage  and  irrigation. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  But  the  land  is  worth  something  when  you  start  it. 
What  is  that  worth  ?  That  has  to  be  added  to  the  $60. 

Mr.  Ross.  No,  that  would  not  be  added  to  the  S60. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Well,  I  am  going  to  add  it  to  the  $60.  What  will  you 
say  it  is  worth  when  they  start,  the  land  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  You  might  assume  any  value.  Assume  a  fair  value  of 
$10  an  acre,  that  it  is  worth  that  before  reclamation. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Do  vou  think  that  is  an  average  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  I  would  not  attempt  to  fix  any  average,  because  we  are 
dealing  with  such  a  variety  of  conditions.  But  let  us  assume  that 
it  has  a  value  of  $10.  Xow,  if  you  assume  this  as  a  fair  value  before 
reclamation,  there  will  have  been  expended  then,  say,  §70  an  acre. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  It  is  worth  $70  when  they  get  it  reclaimed,  then? 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes,  it  is  worth  more.  Say,  at  two  years  after  it  is 
reclaimed  it  is  worth  at  least  twice  the  cost  of  reclamation,  because  a 
large  percentage  of  it  will  be  under  cultivation  at  that  time. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  There  are  some  districts,  I  presume,  where  that  is  not 
correct,  aren't  there? 

Mr.  Ross.  Very  few. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Which  are  they? 

Mr.  Ross.  Taking  into  account  the  need  of  reclamation,  because 
in  such  cases  the  lands  would  have  a  value,  a  real  value,  before  the 
owners  would  attempt  to  reclaim  them — 

Mr.  LITTLE  (interposing).  Which  are  the  districts  where  the  land 
has  not  reached  such  a  value  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Has  not  ? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Yes. 

Mr.  Ross.  Well,  I  don't  know  of  any  districts.  I  don't  know  of 
any  body  of  land  suitable  for  reclamation  where  the  lands  are  not 
worth  twice  the  cost  of  reclamation. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Of  all  the  lands  that  we  have  been  working  on  for 
years,  which  district  has  the  highest  value  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Are  vou  speaking  now  of  the  West  or  South  ? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Take  them  both. 

Mr.  Ross.  Well,  I  know  lands  in  California  that  sell  at  $200  an 
acre  before  irrigation  facilities  are  provided. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  That  is  in  the  valley,  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  In  the  valley,  lands  that  have  been  used  for  40  years. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  That  would  not  be  the  Imperial  Valley  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  No,  I  did  not  say  the  Imperial  Valley — in  the  San 
Joaquin  or  the  Sacramento  Valley. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  irrigating,  reclaiming  by  irrigation, 
lands  in  California  that  have  been  cultivated  for  40  vears,  for  the 
purpose  of  increasing  the  yield,  increasing  the  production  ? 


80         DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman,  with  the  exception  of  the  Im- 
perial Valley  practically  every  acre  of  land  that  has  been  put  under 
irrigation  in  California  was  used  prior  to  irrigation  for  dry  farming. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  can  in  some  cases  double  the  yield  or 
something  like  that  '. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes,  or  establish  an  entirely  new  system  of  agriculture. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Much  more  profitable  I 

Mr.  Ross.  Much  more  profitable;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  In  what  districts  have  Government  reclamation  funds 
been  used  to  increase  the  value  of  the  farming  lands  that  have  been 
used  for  40  years  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  There  is  one  project  in  the  Scacramento  Valley  in 
California,  the  Orland  project.  All  of  that  land  had  been  used  for 
40  or  50  years  before  the  Government  irrigation  was  provided. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  You  spoke  of  the  difference  between  the  West  and 
the  South.  What  irrigation  do  you  have  in  mind  in  the  South  * 

Mr.  Ross.  I  don't  have  any  irrigation  in  mind.  I  have  drainage 
in  mind  in  the  South. 

Mr.  LYOX.  In  speaking  of  the  $60  cost  per  acre,  Mr.  Ross,  do  you 
think  that  it  would  cost  that  much  to  reclaim  the  land  in  the  South 
by  drainage  ? 
"Mr.  Ross.  It  will  cost  more  than  that  to  reclaim  some  of  it. 

Mr.  LYOX.  Were  you  with  Secretary  Lane  in  his  visit  to  Bolton. 

\.  (D.I 

Mr.  Ross.  No. 

Mr.  LYON.  You  don't  know  anything  about  the  cut  over  lands 
around  there '. 

Mr.  Ross.  Xo.  I  do  not.  I  had  to  do  with  the  lands  in  Louisiana 
and  Texas  and  Arkansas — in  that  section. 

Mr.  LYOX.  The*  reason  I  asked  you  what  it  would  cost  is,  I  think. 
there  are  probably  150.000  acres  there  that  an  engineer  a  few  years 
ago  figured  could  be  drained  for  So  an  acre. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes.  I  will  agree  with  you  that  such  statements  have 
been  made.  Statements  have  been  made  to  the  effect  that  the  Ever- 
glades could  be  drained  at  a  cost  of  85  per  acre,  but  it  is  costing  in 
many  cases  $25  to  S40  per  acre. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  You  spoke  a  while  ago  of  the  cost  of  ?00  an  acre,  and 
in  that  connection  you  gave  as  an  illustration  land  worth  S10  an  acre. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Of  course,  the  SI;D  j<  ;;11  that  represents  the  bond 
issue,  theoretically. 

Mr.  Ross.  That  would  be  the  bond  is-ue-  yes. 

MY.  STXXOTT.  That  would  be  the  bond  issue? 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes.  Now  the  point  I  wanted  to  make  was  that,  say, 
within  two  \  ears  from  the  time  such  land  as  that  has  been  reclaimed, 
it  would  undoubtedly  be  worth  twice  the  cost  of  its  reclamation. 

Mr.  BAXKIIEAD.  In  that  connection.  Mr.  Ross,  the  Government  has 
appropriated,  or  there  has  been  used  from  Government  funds  for 
irrigation  in  the  West.  I  understand,  about  S125.000.000.  approxi- 
mately. 

Mr.'  Ross.  About  that. 

Mr.  B  \NKHF.Ai).  What  would  you  estimate  the  present  actual 
value  of  the  lands  reclaimed  to  be,  the  lands  reclaimed  by  those 
appropriations  (  Is  it  twice  the  amount  of  the  appropriations? 


DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES.         81 

Mr.  Ross.  Oh,  yes;  I  think  it  is  estimated  in  the  reports  of  the 
Reclamation  Service  at  about  $500,000,000.  This  would  be  the  value 
of  the  property  which  would  be  assessable  under  the  provisions  of 
this  measure  were  it  applicable  to  such  projects. 

Mr.  SMITH.  About  five  times  the  cost. 

Mr.  Ross.  Almost  five  times  the  cost. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  That  would  indicate  the  absolute  solvency  of  the 
bond  issue. 

Mr.  Ross.  There  is  no  question  about  that  at  all,  and  moreover, 
under  the  form  of  organization  provided,  the  loan  value  of  the  land 
will  not  be  impaired.  It  would  only  be  impaired  in  the  case  of  an 
exceedingly  expensive  project,  where  the  annual  installment  would 
be  very  high,  but  in  the  case  of  a  project  that  would  cost.  say.  ?60  or 
875  an  acre,  the  loan  value  of  the  land  would  not  be  reduced  anything 
to  speak  of.  You  could  go  to  the  Federal  Land  Bank  and  borrow  just 
as  if  such  bond  issue  did  not  exist. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  Now  there  is  one  other  question  I  want  to  as\i  you 
here.  The  Smith-McNary  bill  provides  for  the  payment  of  6  per  cent, 
the  total  of  the  amount  that  will  have  to  be  paid  in  interest. 

Mr.  Ross.  No;  5  per  cent. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  I  know. 

Mr.  Ross.  There  is  no  definite  plan  outlined  for  the  repayment  of 
the  district  bonds. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  Five  per  cent.  This  bill  provides  for  an  addi- 
tional 1  per  cent. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes;  for  amortization. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  What  is  the  difference  in  effect  of  those  two  pro- 
visions. Mr.  Ross  ( 

Mr.  Ross.  Well,  I  do  not  wish  to  criticize  the  bill  at  all. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  I  do  not,  either. 

Mr.  Ross.  I  think  the  Smith-McNary  bill  would  be  a  very  much 
better  measure  if  the  provisions  for  repayment  of  the  district  bonds 
were  made  definite  and  uniform  and  the  payments  strung  out  over 
just  as  long  a  time  as  possible,  because  that  is  about  the  only  ad- 
vantage that  can  be  given  to  the  landowner,  the  reducing  of  his 
annual  installments. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Do  you  mean  that  they  are  not  made  uniform  in  the 
Smith-McNary  bill  T 

Mr.  Ross.  No;  there  is  no  provision  which  makes  them  uniform. 
It  says  they  shall  be  repaid  over  a  period  not  exceeding  25  years,  but 
while  most  of  the  State  laws  provide  a  district  bond  that  is  paid  within 
a  period  of  25  years  it  is  not  paid  under  an  amortization  plan,  but 
the  annual  installments  generally  begin  about  three  or  four  years 
from  the  issuing  of  the  bonds  by  the  payment  of  2  per  cent,  then  3 
and  4  per  cent  each  year,  and  so  on  up.  So  it  would  make  quite  a 
substantial  installment  in  a  very  short  time,  as  against  a  maximum 
installment  under  this  plan  of  only  6  per  cent. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Would  it  be  a  practical  proposition  to  get  a  part  of 
the  funds  for  a  project  from  the  reclamation  fund,  not  paying  interest, 
and  another  part  under  this  paying  interest  I  It  would,  would  it  not  1 

Mr.  Ross.  It  would  be  entirely  feasible;  yes.     The  obligation — I 
mean  the  interest-bearing  obligatign,  would  be  measured  by  the 
bonds  that  would  be  issued.     It  would  be  entirely  feasible.     There 
would  be  no  confusion  at  all. 
56664—21 6 


82         DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Do  you  think  it  is  necessary,  Mr.  Ross,  to  wait  until  the 
property  values  on  a  project  are  worth  twice  the  cost  before  offering 
the  bonds,  especially  in  view  of  the  increasing  value  of  the  land  as  it  is 
brought  up  to  a  state  of  high  cultivation  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  I  think  that  you  have  first  of  all  got  to  establish  the 
value  of  these  bonds;  so  it  is  a  pretty  good  idea,  in  my  judgment,  to 
fix  a  standard  in  the  law  that  fixes  the  value  of  the  bonds  beyond  any 
question. 

Now,  when  a  disinterested  body  like  the  Federal  Land  Bank  ap- 
praises the  assessable  property  of  a  district  and  decides  that  it  is 
worth  twice  the  par  value  of  the  outstanding  bonds  of  such  district, 
then  I  doubt  if  there  is  any  bond  house  or  insurance  company  in  the 
country  that  would  refuse  to  accept  such  bonds.  They  would  be 
glad  to  take  them. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  The  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board  is  now  required  to 
appraise  the  land  and  may  only  make  loans  for  about  one-half  its 
value  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  I  think  the  standard  is  set  out  in  the  Federal  farm  loan 
act. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  My  recollection  is  that  they  may  loan  up  to  60  per 
cent  of  the  value  of  the  land. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  I  think  it  is  50  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  land 
and  20  per  cent  of  the  improvements. 

MR.  HAYDEX.  We  ought  not  to  adopt  a  more  lax  standard  than 
that, 

Mr.  Ross.  I  think  so.  Later  on,  years  from  now,  it  might  be 
advisable  to  waive  this  provision,  but  at  the  present  time  I  don't 
think  it  would  be  well  to  do  so. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  Do  you  believe  there  is  a  material  advantage  in 
amortizing  the  payments,  rather  than  to  make  payment  of  so  much 
interest  and  so  much  on  principal,  and  keep  the  two  payments 
separate  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  It  is  a  well  established  system  of  repaying  a  debt  of 
this  kind.  It  is  the  basis  of  land  credit  systems  the  world  over;  the 
repayment  of  loans  under  an  amortization  plan. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  How  many  countries  do  that  now  ( 

Mr.  Ross.  The  land  credit  systems  of  most  of  the  countries  of 
central  Europe  do  it. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  How  many  ? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  What  countries  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Germany,  and  I  think  Poland.  As  you  are  perhaps 
aware,  most  of  the  countries  of  central  Europe  have  a  land  credit 
system. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Which  part  of  Gonna ny.  the  German  Empire  > 

Mr.  Ross.  I  think  all  of  Germany  as  it  was  prior  to  the  war. 

Mr.  HAYDF.N.  I  know  that  the  amortization  plan,  prior  to  the 
World  War  at  least,  existed  in  Germany,  Austro-IIungary,  Denmark, 
and  France.  The  Irish  Land  Purchase  Act  contained  an  amortiza- 
tion provision,  and  I  think  the  period  of  payment  extended  to  62 
years. 

Mr.  Ross.  Then  all  of  the  Australian  states  have  such  a  plan  for 
the  repayment  of  debts  of  this  kind,  as  well  as  New  Zealand. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  What  Governments  have  adopted  land  settlement 
schemes  providing  for  amortization  and  government  cooperation, 
and  providing  funds  ? 


DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX    THE    UNITED   STATES.         83 

Mr.  Ross.  Well,  the  ones  just  listed  by  Mr.  Hayden. 

Mr.  BANKHEAD.  I  know,  biit  in  addition  to  that  haven't  Egypt  and 
India  and  Australia  done  that  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  The  British  Government  has  a  plan  for  national  recla- 
mation in  India  that  has  been  in  operation  for  the  past  50  years.  A 
very  large  percentage  of  the  irrigated  lands  of  India  have  been 
reclaimed  under  government  aid.  In  some  cases  part  of  the  fund 
is  repaid  through  the  payment  of  rentals  or  rates.  I  think  that  in 
some  cases  funds  are  advanced  without  interest,  but  in  most  cases 
they  are  repaid  with  interest,  but  at  a  comparatively  low  rate. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  Do  you  happen  to  know  about  the  Assouan  Dam? 
Was  that  merely  a  gratuity  appropriation? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  I  don't  think  that  was  any  part  of  a  plan  like  this. 
They  just  built  a  big  dam  there. 

Mr.  'HAYDEX.  And  paid  for  it  out  of  public  funds  ( 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  For  the  benefit  of  the  country  without  any  repay- 
ment at  all? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  That  is  my  understanding.  It  was  built  after  I  left 
there,  but  they  were  figuring  on  it,  and  they  built  one  at  Assiout 
and  one  at  Assouan,  and  they  already  had  the  barrage  north  of  Cairo — 
those  three  big  dams.  The  barrage  was  built  75  years  ago,  started 
by  Mahomet  Ali.  It  was  built  by  French  engineers  originally.  It 
is  just  a  government  dam,  and  my  understanding  is  that  the  others 
were  built  just  the  same  way. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Just  for  the  general  welfare  of  all  the  people  ? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Yes. 

Mr.  Ross.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  certain  portions  of  the  public  reve- 
nues are  applied  on  repayment  of  the  cost  of  this  work? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Yes;  that  is  my  understanding.  That  wTas  done  after 
I  left,  except  the  barrage  above  Cairo.  That  had  been  there  a  long 
time. 

Mr.  BANKHEAD.  I  have  forgotten,  Mr.  Ross,  did  you  explain  the 
results  of  the  operation  of  bill  6048  with  reference  to  providing  con- 
tinuing and  revolving  funds  for  additional  and  future  projects  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes;  I  have  tested  out  the  plan  very  carefully,  and  I 
have  here  a  summary  of  results  based  upon  estimates  which  are  set 
out  in  detail.  They  consist  mainly  of  figures,  and  if  I  may  hand 
them  to  the  secretary  I  would  like  to  have  them  included  in  the  record. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  they  will  be  inserted  in  the 
record. 

(The  papers  referred  to  follow:) 

BALANCE    SHEEP   SHOWING    OPERATIONS    UNDER   THE    COOPERATIVE    RECLAMATION    AC1  , 

H.  R.  6048. 

For  the  purpose  of  illustrating  operations  under  this  act  it  is  assumed: 

(1)  That  an  appropriation  of  Sl.ooo.ooo  \vill  be  used  for  the  construction  of  a  single 
project. 

(2)  That  the  period  for  such  construction  will  be  four  years. 

(3)  That  the  amount  of  interest  which  will  accrue  during  this  period  is  10  per  cent 
of  the  money  actually  expended  on  construction. 

(4)  That  this  accrued  interest  will  be  added  to  the  amount  actually  spent  on  reclama- 
tion, and  that  district  bonds  will  be  issued  to  this  amount.     This  issue  will  then  be 
110  per  cent  of  the  amount  actually  advanced  from  the  appropriation  or  $1.100.000. 

(5)  That  ten-elevenths  of  this  issue,  or  $1.000.000.  will  be  sold  to  the  investing 
public,  the  proceeds  to  be  used  for  the  reclamation  of  other  land.     Therefore,  since 


84         DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGKICULTURE   IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

the  installments  of  interest  and  principal  collected  for  the  repayment  of  these  bonds 
will  be  paid  to  the  purchasers  of  such  bonds,  such  installments  will  not  be  taken 
account  of  in  these  estimates. 

(6)  That  one-eleventh  of  the  total  amount  of  bonds  issued,  or  $100,000,  will  be 
deposited  in  the  fund  and  that  the  amortizing  installments  which  will  be  paid  on  same 
amounting  to  h  p-?r  cent,  or  ?6.000.  will  be  available  for  the  repayment  of  the  appro- 
priation. "Also  that  a  similar  amount  of  bond?  will  be  retained  in  the  fund  from  the 
issues  of  each  of  the  projects  of  the  second,  third,  fourth,  and  other  series  which  will 
be  constructed  as  indicated  on  the  balance  sheet,  and  that  the  amortizing  installments 
that  will  be  paid  on  same  will  also  be  available  for  the  repayment  of  the  appropriation. 

(7)  That  an  annual  assessment  of  I  per  cent  of  th?  cost  of  the  project  will  be  paid 
into  the  fund  by  the  district  during  the  life  of  its  bonds,  to  be  applied  on  the  appropria- 
tion.    Thi-  assessment  is  to  begin  one  year  after  thn  completion  of  the  project.     Also  a 
similar  assessment  will  be  paid  by  the  projects  of  the  second,  third,  fourth,  and  other 
series,  as  indicated,  to  be  used  for  the  same  purpose. 

(8)  That  repayment  of  advances  made  from  the  appropriation  to  the  project  shall 
begin  10  years  after  t!ie  completion  of  such  project.     This  will  be  about  1")  years  from 
the  elate  of  th^  first  advances. 

A-  will  b^  noted  on  the  bala?ice  sheet,  it  is  assumed  that  two  years  after  the  com- 
}.>]ftion  of  the  project,  or  six  years  from  the  beginning  of  its  construction,  the  bonds 
of  the  district  will  be  sold,  such  op?ration  to  be  repeated  in  the  case  of  each  district 
subsequently  organized.  Thus,  the  appropriation  will  be  "turned  over"  every  >)ix 
\\-ars.  The  siiinmars  giving  results  to  the  end  of  the  forty-eighth  \ear  shows  the 
amount  of  construction  which  may  be  done  by  the  end  of  each  six-year  period. 


DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX    THE    UXITED   STATES.         85 


86         DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED  STATES. 


1 

li 

•   •  i              i 
i  i  s 

ill  :  :  =  i 

i       III 

ti 

MI          ^  N 

!       Ill 

m 

ill                          III  :  :  : 

1       ill 

:  :    i 

\    \ 

\    1 

1  I 

1  B 

Iccnlh. 

:    -•                           .^---  :  :  : 
:    *                                  :  :  : 

:            1 

5    : 

»  : 

4 

:    g"                           « 

§iji 

:       §§; 

-f 

i  §           li  jH 

|S"              **!!•! 

§       i 

s"        = 

-  : 

1 
P 

Ig 

V  : 

:    3 

i! 

§ 

s 

s 

~ 

§  -I  I 

i       §§: 

' 

:            --  : 

i| 

af* 

\ 

8  ' 

: 

=  .  . 

Twelfth. 

II  : 

;      li  ; 

:                   :  :      : 

5 
p 
3 

\    \ 

§;; 

1    Im  i 

Accrued  inlcre-t  al  1  IM'r  cent  on  approplial  ion  of  $1,000,000  from  a\cr 
atfc  dute  ofiidvuiiccs  lociid  ol  fourteenth  \eiir:  ilNl.niin  ,,<.,  i,  ,|  i  \ 
next  iii-m  i  .  . 

iii 

•  '•%*% 

•   iill 

;    ;    ;        '; 

Amortizing  installments  ol  Si  .0,0(1(1,  1  cine.  '>  per  cent  of  the  app 
lion  of.*UKXi,iinn  
T!  in  iai  menta  i  aj  interest  ai  i  pci  oent,  ai  o  tb 

In  1  lie  four  1,.,-Ml  ll  v-i.iir 

Kcccinls: 
Annii  1  amortizing  Installments  of  ln.ooo,  bein^  (IIHT  (rut  on  $ 
old  .triet  1  onds  i  one-eleventh  ol  lolal  ;  uc  retained  in  fund, 
pai<  in  36  Installments.  Similar  installments  will  i  e  paid  toil 

in  1  c  >ame  prop.iiii-ui  oflhc  bonds  ol  the  second,  third,  four! 
oth  •  series  ol  projects  Ihal  uill  le  ov^aiii/c'l  in  turn  as  ind 
Tin  e  Installments  will  be  as  follows:  Annual  amorti'int,' 
me  ts  of  r,  |M-r  cenl  of  *1(M1,IKM1  i  olie-elevenl  h  of  total  bond  i 
(list  iel  :. 

h  rst  scries  ... 

i  \*& 

zti 

\ 
\ 

Ki^ht  h  scries  '.  

Totals  (accrue<l  amount  of  fi  per  cent  installments)  ,  . 
1  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the  project  ,  amounting  to  $11,0 
paid  into  1  he  fund  each  vear  during  t  he  life  of  l.hc  bonds  an 
pa.Miicnl  will  lie  made  im  projects  of  the  sciics,  which  wi 
shown:  A  nnual  payments  of  t  be  cost  of  1  he  project 
Kirsl  scries  

|j| 

If] 

Accrued  amount  of  all  Installments  

Amount  duo 

Credit  balance  

i|li 

~  ~  -  ^ 
\-,l\ 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES.         87 


ii  i  i 


':  ': 


i  § 


000 

(KKl 


III  i 

*" 


il 


ion  Of  $1,0 

year:  $!S(), 


\m\ 

till!  finiii 


i  II 


>,  bein^i;  perc 
l  t  per  cent,  al 

of  ?>;,(X)<>,  l;eiiiK  C 
il  olal  issue)  ret 
ritistaHinents  w 
on  Is  of  the'  seco 
ll  l:e  or^'iini  ed 
follows:  Annua 
e-eleventh 


88         DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE   IN   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

3  I  :  •        •  ;        I 


iiiii 


iili 


c c~~5z 

•s-S-S-s^c 


il 

_r_r^"_ T— T_J r  ;— "• 


000 

ooo 


§§l§j 

•S-S-S-S; 


ii 


of  $1,000,000  from 
oar:  1480,000  (rov- 

l  o!  1  hr  ftp 


I  I 

~   :    S=s_--Ez? 

-   •     =  =  s  =  E  -  = 

= : 

llafll 


C     S     ;;     ? 


1 

Fiftieth. 

\                  \  iiiiiii 

.:|lc  =  55 

; 

ll' 

;                   i  :§ 

' 

iiiisls 

tt 

Jl          Hi 

siiiii         i 

•WVfg              | 

=  =  iS  |g 

i          ! 

v     ri" 

*  $ 

Forty- 
seventh. 

•  § 

iiilll  ': 

; 

:    g                            : 

II 

:    §                       '     :««« 
:    i 

: 

i 

ti 

!    1                           ill 

111! 

! 

fl 

!   1 
:    g                            :««.--- 

1  : 

f 

i  : 

j 

ti 

i  | 

'. 

II 

5     5                                 !55 

sszs 

i 

^  £  5  ~  ~  ~  ~ 

*~~ 

1  *           rt~r 

— 

11 

:  i               ill 

ill  : 

:    3                                        *  : 

'l>  Accrued  interest  at  1  percent  on  appropriation  of  Sl,000,000  from 
u\erage  dale  of  advances  to  end  of  fourteenth  year:  SISO.OIKt 

Amort  i/ing  installments  of  $'K),00(),  being  ti  perceni  of  Ihe  appro- 
priul  ion  of  $1  .(XXl.lMM)  
These  installment  spay  Interest  al  1  per  cent  ,  alsothe  accrued  inter- 
e<t  to  (he  fourteenth  year  
Receipts: 

Annual  unorl  i/.inu  installments  of  $!i.(K)(t,  beini;(i  pe-cenl  on  $100,000 
of  district  binds  (one-eleventh  of  K'lal  i^suc)  retained  in  fund, 
will  he  paid  in  '.V'<  i  list  ailments.  Similar  Installments  \\  ill  be  paid 
to  Ihe  fund  in  the  same  proportion  of  Ihe  b  .nds  of  Ihe  se,'  Hid. 
third,  fourth.  and  other  series  of  projects  1  hat  will  be  organized  in 
turn  asindicatc  1.  These  installments  will  heas  follows:  Annual 
umorti'/.ing  installments  of  (i  per  cent  of  $100,0(Mt  uinc-uHHbith  of 
total  bond  issue  of  district)  — 
First  scvie  1  
Se  'ond  series  
Thin!  scries 

11,000,  will  he 
bonds  and  a 
es,  which  will 
le  project 

1 

Foiirl  li  series  
Fifth  series  

si  \  i  h  series  

Seventh  series  
Eighth  series  

Total  (accrued  amount  of  (i  per  cent  installments! 
1  percent  of  the  cost  of  the  proje/l  .  amounting  to! 
paid  into  the  fund  e  i-h  \c  ir  dm  in-  Ihe  life  of  1  hi 
similar  payment  v  ill  be  made  on  projects  of  the  set- 
follow  as  shown:  Annual  payments  of  the  cost  of  t 
First  ,,..,,• 

y 

-  —  •E.' 

d 

\  moil  n  1  due  
Cre  lil  h'llanee  

N  install  men  Is  due  on  appropriation  
Payment  could  he  made  forty-eighth  year,  loavi 

90 


DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 


S  = 


l-a 


11 


III 


II  1 

Hi 

EH  ft     O 


J  s 


i 


II II 

§  >>    c  a 

Uli 


So     |    S 

111! 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES.         91 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Mr.  Ross,  in  section  20,  page  13,  on  line  21,  and  so 
on,  it  provides:  "That  all  reclamation  projects  or  units  thereof  upon 
which  actual  construction  work  shall  be  commenced  after  the  passage 
of  this  act  shall  be  organized  in  the  manner  provided  herein."  Now, 
what  does  that  mean — "shall  be  organized  in  the  manner  provided 
herein"  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Organized  as  districts. 

Mr.  SiNNOtT.  Then  a  Government  reclamation  project  that  was 
not  organized  into  a  district  could  not  secure  any  money  under  this 
act? 

Mr.  Ross.  Well,  the  definition  is  quite  clear  as  to  what  projects 
shall  organize  as  districts.  It  says  that  all  reclamation  projects  or 
units  thereof  upon  which  actual  construction  work  shall  be  com- 
menced after  the  passage  of  this  act  shall  be  organized  in  the  manner 
provided  herein. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  There  is  no  "  manner/'  in  my  opinion,  as  to  the 
organization  of  anything  under  this  act,  except  that  it  is  only  dis- 
tricts or  minor  subdivisions  of  a  State  which  may  apply  to  the  Sec- 
retary. But  the  act  itself  does  not  provide  any  manner  of  organiza- 
tion. I  think  that  language  is  somewhat  loose  and  ought  to  be  made 
clear. 

Mr.  Ross.  Is  that  the  way  you  understand  it  ? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  Ross.  Well,  I  may  possibly  be  so  familiar  with  it  that  that  idea 
did  not  impress  my  mind,  but  it  might  be  necessary  to  make  it  a 
little  clearer  by  referring  to  the  section  of  the  bill  which  outlines  the 
plan  of  organization  which  must  be  followed. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Would  the  passage  of  either  of  these  bills  interfere 
with  yours,  Mr.  Smith,  or  yours,  Mr.  Bankhead  ?  Is  there  a  conflict 
between  the  Smith  bill  and  the  Bankhead  bill  ? 

Mr.  BANKHEAD.  Yes;  there  is  a  conflict  in  this,  Colonel,  that  the 
Smith  bill  only  provides  for  the  lending  of  Government  credit  or  the 
appropriation  for  the  arid  lands,  or  semiarid  lands,  of  the  West;  my 
bill  proposes  Government  cooperation  for  lands  everywhere  in  the 
country,  either  for  irrigation  or  for  reclamation  by  drainage.  That 
is  the  essential  difference. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Under  section  7,  Mr.  Ross,  the  authority  contained 
in  the  Federal  farm  loan  act,  and  so  on,  "is  hereby  extended  to  pro- 
vide for  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  Federal  Farm  Loan  Board 
as  specified  herein.  Have  you  in  mind  what  particular  authority 
is  referred  to  there,  what  particular  provisions  of  the  Federal  farm 
loan  act  will  be  invoked  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Well,  if  you  recall  the  provisions  of  the  farm  loan  act, 
they  place  large  powers  in  the  board,  and  this  simply  adds  to  the 
authority,  the  general  authority  which  they  already  have. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  I  had  in  mind  was  what  specific  authority  in 
the  Federal  farm  loan  act  this  section  would  take  advantage  of. 

Mr.  Ross.  I  think  that  where  it  states  that  the  authority  contained 
in  the  Federal  farm  loan  act  of  July  17,  1916,  and  acts  amendatory 
thereof,  it  would  simply  add  the  duties  provided  in  this  bill  to  such 
duties  as  are  not  now  enumerated  in  the  Federal  farm  loan  act. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Would  it  not  be  better  to  direct  the  Federal  Farm 
loan  board  to  perform  the  acts  authorized  by  this  bill  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Well,  it  might  be  stated  that  way. 


92         DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  Then  we  would  not  be  extending  any  general  law  in 
a  way  which  might  later  cause  confusion. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  are  applying  the  entire  Federal  farm  loan  act 
to  this. 

Mr.  Ross.  It  says,  ''is  hereby  extended" — such  authority  as  is 
now  contained  in  the  Federal  farm  loan  act  "is  hereby  extended  to 
provide  for  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  Federal  farm  loan  board 
as  specified  herein."  I  don't  see  where  there  is  anything  confusing 
about  that. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  Well,  if  there  was  any  confusion  it  could  be 
amended  to  confine  it  with  reference  to  the  sale  of  the  bonds,  etc. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Were  there  some  other  observations  you  wish  to 
make  on  the  bill  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  There  is  this,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  I  see  this  movement — 
this  movement  for  the  reclamation  of  lands — which  is  obviously 
gathering  a  good  deal  of  force,  has  gathered  great  force  and  interest 
during  the  past  two  or  three  years,  I  can  only  think  of  it  as  being 
based  upon  a  national  need  and  not  a  sectional  need.  I  think  per- 
haps one  of  the  weakest  arguments  that  could  be  offered  to-day  in 
support  of  this  movement  is  for,  say.  the  western  people,  my  own 
section  of  the  country,  to  say  that  "  We  want  Congress  to  appropriate 
a  large  sum  of  money  because  we  want  to  extend  our  irrigation:  or 
want  certain  lands  reclaimed."  Or  for  the  South  to  say.  "  Wt>  want 
Congress  to  appropriate  because  we  want  certain  lands  drained."  I 
believe  that  the  strongest  claim  that  can  be  made  for  Government 
assistance  should  be  based  upon  a  national  need  which  now  exists  for 
extending  our  home  building  upon  the  land.  Agriculture  has  not 
that  thing  within  itself  which  enables  it  to  extend  itself.  Agriculture 
is  not  like  other  industries;  while  it  is  the  greatest  of  all  the  industries 
it  is  unlike  the  great  modern  industries  of  to-day.  It  is  divided  into 
about  7,000,000  units,  totally  unorgani/od.  We  might  say  to  the 
farmers  or  to  the  man  out  of  employment.  "If  you  want  land  re- 
claimed, go  and  reclaim  it."  But  how  is  he  to  reclaim  it  ( 

It  is  beyond  the  power  of  the  individual  to  go  out  and  reclaim  a 
large  body  of  land,  to  bring  it  under  cultivation  so  that  more  homes 
may  be  built;  and  for  that  reason  the  responsibility  devolves  upon 
the'  public  itself,  upon  the  State,  or  the  Federal  ^Government,  to 
provide  facilities  so  this  work  may  be  done. 

If  we  had  millions  of  acres  ready  for  the  plow,  as  we  had  years  ago, 
then  you  could  say  to  the  farmer  or  even  to  the  man  who  was  out  of 
a  job  in  the  city.  "Go  out  and  file  on  a  homestead."  But  you  would 
simply  be  mocking  him.  He  can't  do  it.  Such  land  no  longer 
exists.  The  only  land  that  is  available  that  is  fit  for  agriculture  is 
the  land  that  has  to  be  reclaimed  by  some  process  or  other,  and  such 
work  is  beyond  the  power  of  the  individual.  Also,  as  1  see  it,  it 
doesn't  make  any  difference  where  such  land  may  be  so  long  as  it  is 
within  the  United  States.  Interest  in  the  subject  of  rural  home 
building  does  not  begin  west  of  the  one  hundredth  meridian,  nor 
docs  it  begin  on  either  side  of  the  Mason-DLxon  Line;  it  is  common  to 
the  entire  country.  I  also  believe  that  before  any  legislation  of  this 
kind — I  mean  a  program  of  the  magnitude  that  we  are  now  consider- 
ing— will  be  indorsed  by  Congress,  that  we  have  got  to  arouse  more 
than  a  sectional  interest  in  the  subject,  for  when  you  appeal  to  the 
great  industrial  interests  of  the  East  that  are  now  in  such  distress, 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED  STATES.         93 

their  interest  will  not  be  as  to  where  this  work  is  to  be  conducted ;  for 
their  interest  will  be  to  have  it  conducted  in  all  parts  of  the  country, 
for  only  by  extending  the  building  of  rural  homes  and  putting  people 
In  possession  of  the  land  resources  of  the  country  can  we  extend  our 
home  market,  and  I  believe  this  is  what  our  great  industries  must 
interest  themselves  in  to-day  in  order  to  recover  their  balance. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  If  I  understand  the  provisions  of  Mr.  Smith's  bill, 
it  applies  to  those  States  only  that  have  public  lands  within  them? 
Is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Automatically  so;  yes;  because  it  only  provides  for 
reclamation  by  irrigation. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  The  great  State  of  Texas,  then,  wouldn't  come 
under  the  provisions  of  his  bill ! 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes;  it  applies  to  all  of  those  States  mentioned  in  the 
reclamation  law. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  You  did  not  understand  Mr.  Ross's  answer,  I  think, 
if  his  answer  was  correct.  He  said  "automatically,"  because  it  is  in 
the  irrigation  States  that  they  have  public  lands. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  I  know  reclamation  was  extended  to  that  State 
years  ago. 

Mr.  ^IXXOTT.  It  applies  to  any  State  that  may  be  irrigated: 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Mr.  Bankhead's  bill  covers  drainage  and  cut-over 
lands. 

Mr.  Ross.  And  irrigation.  It  is  a  national  measure:  and  more- 
over, its  operations  may  be  continued  indefinitely;  also  every  dollar 
that  is  appropriated  by  Congress  will  be  repaid  with  interest/and  the 
fund  will  gradually  augment. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Are  there  many  States,  Mr.  Ross,  where  drainage  is 
feasible,  that  have  State  laws  that  would  supplement  or  enable  them 
to  cooperate  under  this  act  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes;  practically  all  of  the  States  have  drainage  laws. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  I  know  thay  have  drainage  laws,  but  have  they  laws 
enabling  a  State  district  to  cooperate  with  the  Government  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Xo,  not  all  of  them.  Some  have.  Some  made  special 
provisions  a  vear  or  two  vears  ago  in  anticipation  of  the  passage  of 
the  Mondell  bill. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  It  will  only  be  a  short  time,  however,  if  this 
bill  should  pass,  involving  national  policy,  until  all  the  legislatures 
would  pass  laws  of  that  sort. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes,  it  would  be  necessary  for  most  of  the  States  to 
pass  what  might  be  called  "enabling  acts,"  and  it  will  be  necessary 
for  them  to  slightly  amend  their  district  laws  so  as  to  issue  the  par- 
ticular kind  of  bond  that  is  contemplated  here.  And  I  think  that 
is  very  desirable,  because  then  there  will  be  uniformity  in  law  and  in 
the  bonds  and  the  steps  that  will  have  to  be  taken. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  In  your  judgment  there  will  probably  be  the  same 
effect  in  the  case  of  the  Federal  aid  road  act  where  there  were  pro- 
visions for  cooperation  with  the  States.  In  order  to  obtain  the  benefits 
of  that  act  certain  States  had  to  pass  laws  by  their  legislatures; 
other  States  even  had  to  amend  their  constitutions,  but  they  all  did 
whatever  was  necessary. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  The  same  experience  obtained  when  the  Smith- 
Hughes  vocational  training  bill  was  passed.  Every  State  in  the 


94          DEVELOPMENT    OF   AGRICULTURE   IN    THE   UNITED    STATES. 

Union  in  a  very  few  months  had  adopted  laws  to  conform,  enabling 
acts  as  you  mentioned,  to  conform  with  the  Federal  law  on  that 
subject. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  Xow.  are  there  any  other  sections  besides  the 
South  where  there  are  lands  available  under  this  act,  besides  the 
West  and  South  (  Aren't  there  considerable  areas  in  some  of  the 
Lake  States  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes.  there  are  considerable  areas  of  cut-over  lands  in 
Minnesota,  Michigan,  and  Oregon;  in  fact,  wherever  great  pine  forests 
used  to  stand  there  are  areas  of  cut-over  lands  that  would  be  available 
for  settlement. 

Mr.  SMITH.  What  would  you  think.  Mr.  Ross,  of  the  idea,  in  order 
to  interest  the  States  hi  these  reclamation  projects,  of  making  it  a 
condition  that  the  States  must  pay  the  interest  on  these  district 
bonds  until  the  time  when  they  can  be  sold,  instead  of  imposing  that 
interests  on  the  settlers,  who  will  have  had  no  benefit  from  the  project 
until  the  water  is  actually  available,  covering  a  period  of  probably 
four  years  '. 

Mr.  Ross.  I  think  we  cover  that  period,  Mr.  Smith. 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  you  charge  the  interest  up  to  the  settler.  You 
capitalize  the  interest  and  charge  it  up  to  the  cost,  and  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  States  in  order  to  get  a  project  would  be  willing  to  bear  that 
burden  and  cooperate  with  the  Federal  Government  and  with  the 
settlers,  so  as  to  put  the  settler  on  the  land  without  any  accumulation 
of  interest  which  he  must  eventually  pay. 

Mr.  Ross.  Well,  if  you  will  examine  the  plan  carefully  you  will  see 
that  it  is  necessary  that  a  fund  be  accumulated  from  some  source  or 
other  in  order  that  the  appropriation  may  be  repaid.  Xow.  under 
this  scheme  we  can't  eat  our  cake  and  keep  it  too:  we  can't  sell  the 
bonds  for  the  reclamation  of  other  lands  and  at  the  same  time  repay 
the  appropriation.  If  we  keep  our  construction  fund  intact  and  repay 
the  appropriation,  then  we  have  got  to  provide  by  some  means  a  fund 
which  will  slowly  accumulate,  that  will  ultimately  repay  the  appro- 
priation, provided  we  want  the  work  to  continue. 

Mr.  1 1  AYDKX.  I  think  you  misunderstood  me.  Mr.  Smith.  Plis  idea  is 
this:  Say,  that  S10,000,000  is  set  aside  for  the  construction  of  an 
irrigation  project,  and  that  it  will  take  four  or  five  years  in  which 
to  build  the  reservoir  and  the  diversion  dam  and  the  canals  and 
actually  get  the  water  to  the  land  so  that  the  water  user  may  have 
an  income  out  of  which  he  could  pay  interest  on  the  money  advanced. 
During  the  period  of  construction  the  money  is  in  use:  it  is  out  of  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States  and  interest  is  being  charged.  Under 
the  terms  of  both  of  these  bills  such  interest  may  be  added  to  the 
cost  of  construction  and  from  then  on  the  payments  begin.  It  is 
Mr.  Smith's  idea  that  it  would  be  of  enough  advantage  to  the  States 
by  having  new  taxable  wealth  created  that  they  might  assume  the 
obligation  of  paying  interest  on  the  money  advanced  during  the 
perioe  of  construction,  up  until  such  time  as  the  settler  was  in  condi- 
tion to  assume  payment. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes.  I  understand  what  Mr.  Smith  was  saying,  and  I 
repeat  again,  that  we  must  provide  some  fund  for  the  repayment  of 
the  appropriation.  Xow.  it  happens  that  when  we  allow  the  interest 
to  accrue  and  capitalize  it,  and  then  issue  bonds  including  this  amount . 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES.         95 

we  can  impound  such  amount  in  our  fund  and  then  sell  all  of  the 
bonds  which  represent  the  amount  actually  advanced  from  the 
appropriation.  But  we  can't  do  this  unless  we  provide  some  special 
fund. 

Mr.  SMITH.  But  it  would  be  all  the  same,  if  the  State  appropriated 
this  money  and  paid  the  interest  on  these  bonds  during  the  con- 
struction period,  as  if  it  were  charged  up  to  the  settler  who  is  to  pay 
it  back  over  a  long  period  of  time. 

Mr.  Ross.  Yes,  that  is  so,  but  of  course  you  must  realize  the  diffi- 
culty of  securing  the  approval  of  the  States  to  any  plan  which  involves 
their  liability.  In  most  cases  it  would  be  necessary  for  them  to  amend 
their  constitutions;  most  State  constitutions  specifically  prohibit 
such  a  policy. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  Here  is  another  objection  to  that.  You  take  the 
reclamation  of  a  project  by  drainage  that  involves,  say,  onl}r  one- 
tenth  of  the  area  of  a  State,  probably  less;  It  would  go  to  improve, 
of  course,  the  value  of  the  lands  in  thet  particular  section,  and  the 
rest  of  the  State,  the  property  owners  of  the  State,  the  taxpayers  of 
the  State,  would  not  derive  any  benefit  from  it. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  They  would  be  interested  this  much,  that  you  are 
creating  new  wealth  which  will  be  taxable  for  all  time  in  that  State, 
and  thereby  reducing  the  burden  of  taxation  upon  the  remainder  of 
the  property. 

Mr.  BAXKHEAD.  That  is  true  academically,  but  from  the  political 
standpoint  if  you  wanted  to  change  the  constitution  of  a  State  for 
that  purpose  I  apprehend  that  in  my  State  at  least  we  would  have 
great  difficulty  in  securing  it. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  It  has  to  be  done  by  a  vote  of  the  people,  Mr. 
Bankhead,  and  it  would  be  mighty  hard  to  get  five-sixths  of  the  State 
of  Texas  to  change  the  constitution  for  the  benefit  of  the  other  one- 
sixth. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Or  any  other  State  that  might  be  affected. 
In  my  State  you  couldn't  do  it. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  It  is  12  o'clock,  gentlemen.  I  am  sure  the  com- 
mittee will  profit  by  the  presentation  made  here  by  Mr.  Ross,  based 
upon  the  wide  experience  he  has  had,  and  I  thank  Mr.  Ross  for  his 
valuable  presentation. 

Mr.  Ross.  I  desire  to  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the  privilege 
of  appearing  before  this  committee. 

(The  following  letter  was  ordered  inserted  .at  this  point:) 

WASHINGTON.  I).  C.,  May  26.  1921. 
Hon.  MOSES  P.  KIN  RAID. 

Chairman  Irrigation  of  Arid  T.nn'is  '  'ommittee, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  MR.  KINKAID:  I  shall  be  greatly  obliged  if  you  \vill  include  in  your 
records  of  yesterday's  hearings  the  following  statement,  being  an  amplification  of  my 
discussion  of  the  reasons  why  Congress  should  authorize  the  Government  to  lend  its 
cooperation  in  the  work  of  rural  home  building  in  this  country. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

D.  W.  Ross. 

WHY     CONGRESS     SHOULD     ENCOURAGE     THE     ESTABLISHMENT     OF    RURAL     HOMES. 

A  turning  point  in  u'orld  affairs. — Without  doubt  we  have  arrived  at  one  of  the 
great  turning  points  in  world  affairs.  The  cause  of  present  disappointments  and 
distress  being  so  deep  seated,  alleviation  will  not  be  found  by  continuing  the  course 
which  we,  along  with  the  rest  of  the  world,  have  for  many  years  been  pursuing,  but 


96         DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UXITED  STATES. 

rather  in  the  opposite  direction.  What  is  first  needed  is  that  the  world  shall  come 
out  of  its  present  madness  and  earnestly  seek  for  a  solution  of  its  troubles.  If  this  lie 
done,  relief  will  be  found  and  close  at  hand  and  it  will  be  permanent  because  it  will 
be  in  league  with,  and  not  opposed  to.  nature. 

We  are  still  living  on  a  very  material  plane,  and  the  spirit  of  imperialism  that  has 
ruled  the  world  through  all  the  ages  still  expresses  itself  through  the  world's  most 
absorbing  interests.  To-day  the  things  of  srreatest  human  concern  are  commerce 
and  indus'ry,  and  the  shaping  of  nation-.il  policies  in  the  effort  to  control  these  two 
great  human  activities  will  determine  the  destiny  of  the  race.  The  overindustrial- 
ized  condition  of  western  Europe  and  America  that  was  established  before  the  war 
began  was  the  result  of  this  spirit.  The  most  noticeable  effect  of  this  condition  was 
seen  in  the  overdevelopment  of  our  great  cities  and  industrial  centers  with  a  corre- 
sponding falling  off  in  agricultural  population  which  was  most  pronounced  in  the 
United  States.  The  successful  maintenance  of  this  recent  redistiibution  of  popula- 
tion depended  above  all  else  upon  maintaining  the  peace  of  the  world.  In  this  we 
failed,  and  a  new  set  of  conditions  and  rel.it ions  have  resulted,  not  counted  on  by 
those  who  plan  wars. 

Ito. — The  war  left  the  United  States  the  world's  creditor  Nation. 
With  the  currency  of  European  nations  at  prewar  standards,  the  readjustment  of  our 
trade  balances  to  normal  by  the  gradual  absorption,  through  imports,  of  the  debts 
due  us.  now  amounting  to  nearly  120,000.000,000  and  rapidly  increasing,  would  be 
a  colossal  undertaking,  but  with  the  money  standards  of  these  countries  degraded 
beyond  hope  of  redemption  such  accomplishment  by  means  of  existing  trade  machin- 
ery is  well-nigh  hopeli-ss. 

The  most  potent  factor  in  the  present  trade  situation  is  the  degraded  condition  of 
the  currency  of  European  countries,  a  condition  which  is  greatly  against  such  coun- 
tries when  Inning  from  us.  of  tremendous  advantage  to  them  when  selling  to  us.  but 
no  great  impediment  when  trading  with  each  other. 

Because  of  the  misery  which  is  the  common  lot  of  the  people  of  Europe,  never 
before  has  the  United  States,  in  my  opinion,  occupied  a  more  precarious  position  in 
the  industrial  world  than  it  does  to-day.  We  must  remember  that  Europe  has  nearly 
three  times  the  man  power  that  we  have  in  th-:-  arts,  crafts,  ami  industries;  th.:i  thV 
people  are  getting  back  onto  their  feet;  and.  what  is  of  still  greater  importance,  they 
must  live.  But  the  international  standard  of  money  value  which  makes  it  very  diffi- 
cult for  Europe  to  buy  from  us  makes  it  still  more  difficult  for  us  to  compete  with 
Europe  in  other  fields. 

The  immediate  effect  on  the  United  States  of  the  European  breakdown  was  the  loss 
of  a  market  that  had  absorbed  the  surplus  products  of  the  American  fanner  for  more 
than  60  years.  This  loss  impaired  the  purchasing  power  of  our  entire  farming  popula- 
tion of  about  40.000.000  people,  which  in  turn  reacted  upon  our  industries,  tfien  upon 
labor  generally,  the  inevitable  reduction  of  wages  causing  further  industrial  reaction. 
However,  the  end  has  not  yet  been  reached,  for  we  are  still  on  a  relatively  higli  plane. 
But  with  every  reduction  in  wages  there  will  be  a  corresponding  reaction  on  the  indus- 
tries, and  this  will  likely  continue  for  many  stages,  the  last  stage  being  the  level  of  Euro- 
pean conditions,  toward  which  we  now  appear  to  be  heading.  And  to  make  the  meas- 
ure of  these  adverse  conditions  full  to  overflowing,  we  will  labor,  perhaps  for  many 
generations,  under  the  crushing  weight  of  a  war  debt  that  is  more  likely  to  iin 
than  diminish. 

The  foregoing  are  some  of  the  outstanding  conditions  that  have  resulted  from  the 
war.  The  continuation  of  these  conditions  is  as  opposed  to  a  return  of  prosperity  as 
is  ignorance,  famine,  or  pestilence.  Credits,  banking,  etc..  are  only  the  vehicles  or 
means  to  facilitate  the  exchange  of  commodities.  Relief  must  be  had  from  the  con- 
ditions themselves  before  prosperity  can  ever  again  be  permanent. 

The  road  to  recovery  leads  to  the  I  ind. — Now.  how  can  relief  be  found  from  the  present 
economic  conditions  which  are  now  world-wide  and  which  promise  to  bear  more 
heavily  upon  us  as  time  goes  on?  There  is  but  one  main  road  to  recovery,  but  it 
does  not  lie  in  the  direction  of  the  course  we  have  been  following,  and  which  has 
ended  so  disastrously.  However,  it  will  still  carry  us  forward,  for  it  leads  to  the  great 
unappropriated  resources  of  nature  in  virgin  fields. 

It  is  estimated  that  le-s  than  15  per  cent  of  the  cultivable  land  of  this  planet  is  now 
in  use.  However,  like  cattle  starved  to  madness,  we  are  crowding  for  possession  of 
overgrazed  or  impoverished  pastures  when  just  over  the  mountain  or  across  the  river 
are  boundless  areas  of  green  meadows  waiting  to  be  utilized*.  The  people  of  over- 
crowded Europe  will  only  find  relief  through  their  migration  by  millions,  not  to  this 
country  i  for  such  a  move  would  be  suicidal),  but  to  new  and  virgin  fields,  and  there 
developing  and  using  the  land,  minerals,  and  other  natural  agents  of  production. 
And  for  the  same  reasons  the  congestion  of  population  in  our  own  great  cities  can 
best  be  relieved  by  the  removal  of  millions  of  people  back  to  the  land. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.        97 

Now,  it  is  upon  the  use  of  natural  resources,  especially  the  land,  that  the  wealth 
of  the  world  has  always  been  based,  and  such  a  movement  as  this— to  engage  in  the 
development  and  use  of  more  of  nature's  resources,  especially  in  virgin  fields— will 
provide  opportunities  for  millions  of  people  to  become  nation  builders  instead  of 
nation  wreckers.  They  must  be  encouraged  to  leave  the  cities  and  occupy  the  open 
and  now  unused  places.  They  should  be  placed  in  possession  of  fertile  land,  not, 
however,  with  the  idea  that  they  will  accumulate  great  riches,  but  rather  that  they 
may  become  the  owners  of  homes,  and  establish  economic  independence.  Their 
citizenship,  no  matter  under  what  government  they  might  live,  would  then  be  in- 
vested with  a  dignity  which  is  lacking  under  present  conditions,  while  the  creation 
of  these  new  homes  will  add  proportionately  to  the  safety  of  the  world. 

The  United  Stales  should  continue  the  development  of  its  own  land  resources. — If  mil- 
lions of  Europeans  had  not  come  to  America  when  its  great  resources  were  practically 
undeveloped,  we  would  not  be  a  great  Nation  to-day,  and  these  millions  or  their 
descendants  would  to-day  be  adding  their  misery  to  the  misery  of  the  others  in  un- 
happy Europe.  It  would,  indeed,  be  hard  to  tell  how  much  the  world  has  gained 
through  the  development  and  use  of  our  great  natural  resources.  We  do  know  that 
this  development  made  this  a  mighty  Nation,  and  for  this  reason  it  should  be  plain 
that  by  the  further  development  of  these  resources  we  can  be  saved  in  the  present 
crisis. 

Of  all  the  great  natural  resources  that  were  appropriated  and  used,  it  was  the  utili- 
zation of  the  vast  areas  of  land  for  homes  to  which  this  country  owes  most  of  its  present 
wealth  and  power.  But  all  of  the  land  that  may  be  put  to  a  profitable  use  at  nominal 
•expense  has  already  been  appropriated  and  only  land  that  can  be  made  fit  for  use 
at  great  expense  is  now  available.  This  is  the  poorer  land  that  has  been  abandoned 
for  various  reasons,  much  of  which  will  have  to  be  recleared,  heavily  fertilized,  or 
otherwise  rehabilitated,  and  the  very  fertile  lands  that  will  have  to  be  reclaimed 
by  means  of  irrigation  or  drainage  before  being  fit  for  cultivation.  The  reclamation 
and  rehabilitation  of  these  lands  would  furnish  employment  and  provide  homes  for 
millions  of  people,  while  the  general  advantages  that  would  result  from  the  utiliza- 
tion of  this  great  resource  would  be  similar  to  that  which  followed  the  appropriation 
and  use  of  the  hundreds  of  millions  of  acres  of  public  land  25  to  60  years  ago. 

It  is  most  unfortunate,  however,  that  such  work  can  not  successfully  be  done  without 
the  cooperation  of  the  Government  and  States.  It  is  because  of  this  fact  that  a  moun- 
tain of  difficulty  appears  upon  the  horizon  of  our  hopes,  for  neither  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment nor  the  States  may  even  entertain  the  thought  of  such  cooperation  except  at  the 
risk  of  parting  with  our  highest  and  dearest  ideals  and  sinking  to  the  leval  of  those 
enlightened  Governments  whose  policies  bear  the  stigma  of  "paternalism."  Even 
some  of  the  policies  of  our  Government  have  been  thus  stignatized,  causing  many  of 
our  leading  citizens  to  blush  for  shame.  One  policy  in  particular  is  thus  branded 
because,  in  pursuance  of  it,  the  Government  has  converted  nearly  2,000,000  acres 
of  once  worthless  desert  land  into  homes  for  more  than  250,000  people  whose  gross 
annual  earnings  now  amount  to  more  than  the  total  cost  of  this  transformation.  But 
although  this  adventure  is  admitted  to  be  a  splendid  success,  the  lands  now  having 
a  value  equal  to  five  times  the  amount  of  money  loaned  by  the  Government  for  the 
construction  of  the  great  engineering  works  that  were  necessary,  there  are  many  who 
still  consider  the  policy  very  mischievous. 

However,  when  the  Government,  prompted  by  the  spirit  referred  to,  appropriates 
billions  of  dollars  that  ships  bearing  our  flag  might  control  the  commerce  of  the  world, 
such  policy  is  acclaimed  as  expressing  the  highest  ideals  of  Americanism.  And  the 
public  is  expected  to  uphold  this  view  regardless  of  the  fact  that  nearly  one-half 
of  the  beautiful  ships  that  have  been  constructed  at  public  expense  are  no'w  floating 
idle  and  empty  in  their  docks. 

Trade  ambitions,  commercial  rivalries,  Government  subsidies,  ruinous  competition, 
national  jealousies,  race  hatreds,  preparedness,  bigger  navies,  imperialism,  war's 
destruction,  degraded  currency,  profiteering,  inflation  of  national  assets  and  liabilities, 
•deflation  of  assets,  new  national  liabilities  sustained  by  national  honor,  crushing 
public  debt,  unprecedented  burden  of  taxation,  famine,  pestilence,  Governments 
overthrown,  idle  ships,  idle  factories,  breakdown  of  commerce  and  industry,  millions 
of  unemployed,  reconstruction  and  then — repeat!  These  are  expressions  of  the  spirit 
of  domination  that  has  been  breathed  into  modern  industry.  We  of  to-day  are  witness- 
ing the  utter  failure  of  this,  the  spirit  of  our  times.  The  same  spirit  has  brought  ruin 
to  the  world  a  thousand  times  in  the  past  and  will  continue  to  destroy  in  all  the  years 
to  come.  But  the  most  terrible  consequence  of  the  present  failure  is  the  failure  of 
industry— the  Jacob's  ladder  of  our  hopes— fallen  by  its  own  weight!  Instead  o? 
lifting  the  world  out  of  its  miseries  it  threatens  to  plunge  it  to  miseries  unheard  of. 

56664—21 7 


98         DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES. 

From  time  to  time  enlightened  governments  have  turned  their  attention  to  the  work 
of  strengthening  the  foundations  of  society  by  making  it  possible  for  more  of  their 
people  to  own  homes  on  the  land.  While  many  policies  of  such  governments  have 
been  marked  by  failure,  history  does  not  record  that  this  beneficent  and  farsighted 
policy  has,  in  a  single  instance,  failed  in  its  purpose.  I  am  fully  convinced  that,  just 
as  the  salvation  of  the  people  of  Western  Europe  depends  upon  their  migration,  by 
millions,  to  virgin  fields,  the  recovery  of  our  own  industrial  equilibrium  and  the 
future  safety,  prosperity,  and  happiness  of  the- people  of  this  country  can  only  be 
assured  through  the  development  and  use  of  more  of  our  own  natural  resources.  But 
these  must  be  developed  with  a  view  to  establishing  the  dignity  and  economic  inde- 
pendence of  the  maximum  number  of  our  citizens.  The  ownership  of  a  home  adds 
dignity  to  citizenship,  while  a  home  on  the  land  is  perhaps  the  most  natural  as  well  as 
the  most  effective  means  of  establishing  the  economic  independence  of  its  owner. 

It  seems  hardly  necessary  to  urge  in  this  connection  that  any  law  authorizing  the 
Government  to  lend  its  cooperation  in  this  work  should  be  sound'  from  every  economic 
standpoint.  It  is  work  that  will  have  to  be  continued  for  many  years,  therefore  the 
financial  devices  employed  should  make  it  self-continuing,  something  like  the  Federal 
farm-loan  system.  Also,  that  these  homes  should  be  established,  not  in  any  one 
locality  or  section  of  the  country,  but  wherever  land  can  be  found  suitable  for  the 
purpose,  in  any  part  of  the  United  States.  The  urging  of  a  makeshift  plan  or  un- 
willingness to  see  beyond  geographical  limits  is  a  confession  that  we  are  not  quite 
equal  to  the  tasks  which  lie  before  us.  The  Bankhead  bill  contains  all  the  desirable 
features  of  legislation  for  this  purpose. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  now  stand  adjourned. 
(Whereupon,  at  12  o'clock  noon,  the  committee  adjourned.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  IRRIGATION  OF  ARID  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Thursday,  Junf  j,  1921. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  M.  P.  Kinkaid 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.  I  should  state 
that  Gov.  Spry  is  very  ill,  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office,  or  he  would  have  been  here  this  morning  to  present  his  views. 

The  committee  will  he  glad  to  hear  you  now.  Mr.  Jones.  Will  you 
please  state  your  residence  ard  whom*  you  represent  ? 

STATEMENT    OF   MR.   RICHARD    SEEIEY  JONES,    EDITOR   OF 
THE  STARS  AND  STRIPES,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  am  editor  of  the  Stars  and  Stripes,  a  weekly  news- 
paper published  in  Washington,  D.  C.  I  presume  that  the  committee 
wants  my  views,  or  rather  what  information  I  might  have  from  the 
ex-soldier  point  of.  view  on  the  bill  that  you  have  before  you,  H.  R, 
2913. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  acquainted  with  the  bill,  are  you  '. 

Mr.  JONES.   Yes;  1  have  read  the  bill  rather  carefully. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  are  acquainted  particularly  with  the 
section  that  refers  to  ex-service  men,  giving  them  a  preference  right  * 

Mr.  JONES.  Exactly.  In  that  connection  I  will  say  that  my  judg- 
ment as  editor  of  a  weekly  newspaper  of  140.000  weekly  circulation 
among  ex-set  vice  men  of  the  World  War  is  based  entirely  upon  the 
opinion  of  ex-service  men,  and  for  that  reason  I  have  given  consider- 
able attention  to  this  legislation,  not  only  this  legislation  but  all 
legislation  affecting  the  ex-service  man. 

I  think  in  considering  the  provisions  of  this  or  any  other  bill,  in  so 
far  as  they  relate  to  the  discharged  soldier,  it  is  very  fair  to  go  a  little 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES.         99 

bit  back  of  even  the  post-war  period  in  which  a  great  many  land  bills 
and  bonus  bills  and  other  bills  intending  to  help  the  ex-soldier  have 
been  proposed,  and  go  back  even  to  the  time  01  service  in  the  Army 
of  the  emergency  soldiers  of  the  World  War.  It  was  my  experience, 
and  I  think  every  other  soldier's  experience  who  was  in  the  Army  for 
practically  the  entire  period  of  the  war,  that  prior  to  the  armistice, 
during  the  period  of  our  active  service,  the  only  thought  which  the 
soldier  had  of  any  reward,  any  material  reward  for  his  military  ser- 
vice, was  that  he  would  receive  land  in  some  form.  The  reason  that 
that  was  his  only  thought  was  that  there  was  no  experience  from  past 
wars  to  base  any  other  thought  on. 

In  other  words,  American  soldiers  of  the  United  States  Government 
in  previous  wars  have  received  two  things,  pensions  and  land,  in  vary- 
ing degrees.  The  presumption  during  this  war  was  that  the  war  risk 
insurance  act  was  designed  to  eliminate  the  necessity  or  the  reason 
for  pensions  or  for  a  pension  system.  That  was  going  to  take  care  of 
the  disabled  soldier,  so  designed,  and  I  presume  it  is  still  intended  to. 
However  that  may  be,  the  belief  in  the  minds  of  every  soldier  that  I 
meet — and  I  met  them  constantly,  of  course,  from  the  day  I  enlisted 
until  I  was  discharged,  in  this  country  and  France  under  all  sorts  of 
'  conditions — that  somehow  out  of  this  war  the  financial  disadvantage 
which  the  soldier  endured  by  reason  of  his  service  and  being  away 
from  his  occupation,  and  so  on,  would  be  compensated  by  getting 
hold  of  some  land,  by  getting  land  ownership.  That,  I  believe, 
extended  from  professional  men,  men  of  ability,  and  perhaps  of  some 
men  of  means  down  to  the  soldier  with  absolutely  no  means.  I  have 
heard  it  from  men  of  foreign  birth  in  our  Army  who  came  out  of  fac- 
tories in  the  eastern  States  and  knew  nothing  about  western  lands 
particularly,  but  had  that  idea  that  as  a  reward  of  this  military  service 
they  were  going  to  get  a  freehold  in  the  land.  Perhaps  the  foreign- 
born  man  is  just  as  keen  or  more  keen  for  that  than  the  native  born, 
and  I  think  that  basis  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  in  considering  any 
proposition  that  tends  to  or  endeavors  to  put  the  soldier  on  the  land; 
that  before  he  heard  of  any  other  compensation  or  thought  of  any, 
he  had  that  firmly  in  mind,  and  I  think  it  is  still  firmly  in  the  mind 
of  men  who  have'not  expressed  it  very  fully  since  there  have  been  a 
great  many  other  plans  developed. 

I  take  it  that  your  bill  here  is  not  a  bonus  bill  or  a  soldier's  com- 
pensation bill;  it  is  primarily  a  reclamation  bill,  a  land-development 
bill,  but  as  it  affects  the  soldier  he  is  just  as  much  interested  in  it  as 
in  any  other  proposition  that  can  be  brought  up  for  the  compensation 
or  the  reestablishment  of  the  veteran  on  a  basis  where  he  can  have  a 
chance  equal  to  the  man  who  was  not  in  the  military  service. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  in  line  with  that,  about  what  percentage  of  the 
ex-service  men  do  you  believe  are  desirous  of  securing  some  sort  of  an 
arrangement  whereby  they  can  get  a  home  on  the  land  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  to  get  a  home — you  mean  to  get  a  farm  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Air.  JONES.  Of  course,  you  include  in  getting  a  home — you  could 
include  all  of  them,  because  there  have  been  bills,  such  as  the  first 
bill,  which  was  the  Dick  Morgan  bill,  the  late  Congressman  Morgan 
of  Oklahoma,  which  was  a  land  farm  and  home  loan,  a  loan  for  a 
city  home.  That  bill  was  considered  two  years  ago  and  every  soldier 
that  ever  heard  of  it  was  in  favqfrof  it.  A  study  of  it  simply  meant 


100      DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTTJEE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

every  soldier.  The  onlv  figures  that  are  available  on  the  demand  for 
land  are  those  in  the  United  States  Land  Office,  particularly  in  the 
Reclamation  Service,  where  they  have  had  more  than  350,000  letters, 
and  up  to  the  last  letter  I  had  from  Mr.  Davis  of  the  Reclamation 
Service  they  were  then  getting  50  letters  a  day  of  inquiry  from  sol- 
diers, ex-soldiers,  about  the  possibility  of  getting  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  a  year  or  two  ago,  though? 

Mr.  JONES.  Xo.  that  was  within  two  or  three  months  that  they 
were  still  getting  them:  not  at  the  rate  they  had  been,  because  the 
men  had  been  discouraged  and  the  land  office  has  in  the  nature  of 
things  been  obliged  to  discourage  them.  Now.  our  experience  with 
land,  personal  experience  through  our  newspaper,  which  reaches 
practically  every  post  of  veteran  organizations  all  over  the  country 
and  is  pretty  closely  in  touch  with  them,  indicated  from  the  first  land 
opening  after  Congress  had  enacted  something  over  a  year  ago  a  bill 
allowing  60-day  preference  to  all  soldiers  on  any  land,  any  public 
land  that  was  tnrown  open— that  law  is  still  in  effect — I  think  it  was 
a  two-year  law — it  expires  in  about  a  year,  and  I  believe  there  is 
now  a  bill  before  Congress  to  extend  it,  aside  from  the  preference 
given  in  this  2913.  The  Shoshone  project  and  the  Xorth  Platte  proj- 
ect, two  irrigation  projects  in  the  Western  States,  were  opened  suo-' 
sequent  to  the  enactment  of  that  preference.  On  one  of  those  proj- 
ects there  were  about  3,200  applicants  who  actually  paid  their 
money;  that  is,  the  deposit  on  the  water- right  payment,  which 
amounted  to  more  than  $1,000,000.  There  were  exactly  80  farms 
available  in  that  project;  80  men  could  get  a  farm,  but  "there  were 
3,200  men  who  went  there  and  made  payments.  I  don't  know  how 
many  more  men  looked  it  over  and  were  discouraged  after  they  got 
there.  Our  newspaper  naturally  received  a  great  man}-  letters  about 
it,  principally  complaints  that  the  lands  had  been  advertised  and 
had  been  announced  and  soldiers  had  gone  there  without  knowing 
what  a  meager  chance  they  had  of  getting  any  land.  We  were  unable 
to  do  anything  in  that  case  because  a  good  many  people  had  spent 
their  monev  and  taken  their  chances  and  even  made  their  deposit. 
Of  course  tney  got  their  deposit  back  and  that  was  the  end  of  it. 

The  next  land  that  was  opened  was  in  the  State  of  Oregon.  That 
was  about  a  year  ago  this  time.  The  North  Platte  and  the  Shoshone 
was  a  year  ago  in  March,  I  think.  There  was  a  big  tract  around 
Ashland,  Oreg.,  not  irrigated  land.  This  was  not  a  reclamation  proj- 
ect but  simply  Government  land.  We  began  to  get  inquiries  about 
that  from  the  date  the  first  announcement  was  made,  and  we  sent 
bur  correspondent  from  Portland,  Oreg.,  down  to  look  it  over.  He 
reported  that  there  was  no  land  there,  except  what  had  been  taken 
by  squatters,  that  was  any  good,  that  was  tillable  soil.  The  rest  of 
it  was  hillside  or  rocky,  or  "otherwise  unsuitable,  and  it  would  be  very 
unwise  for  a  soldier  to  go  there.  We  advertised  that  fact,  and  the 
chamber  of  commerce,  I  think  it  was  Ashland — some  town  in  Oregon 
nearlv  to  the  line — took  a  very  public-spirited  attitude  and  adver- 
tised "the  fact  that  soldiers  should  not  come  there.  Instead  of  the 
usual  chamber  of  commerce  promotion  that  everybody  come,  they 
actually  advertised  widely  that  it  was  futile  for  men  to  come  there, 
but  despite  that  a  number  did  go  and  we  had  our  own  paper  to  make 
that  statement  and  probably  other^oldier  publications  did  the  same, 
and  were  instrumental  in  keeping*!!  great  many  men,  I  don't  know 


DEVELOP MESTT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED  STATES.      101 

how  many,  but  probably  thousands  of  men  were  kept  from  spending 
their  money  going  there  to  try  to  get  land. 

I  just  recite  these  definite  instances  to  show  you  how  keen  the 
demand  is  still  among  ex-service  men  for  land.  The  development  of 
proposals  to  pay  a  soldier's  bonus,  I  think,  has  to  a  great  extent 
diverted  the  interests  of  many  men  from  the  possibility  of  getting 
land. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  your  theory — you  have  investigated  the 
matter  pretty  thoroughly — relative  to  the  real  genuine  benefit  to  the 
soldier  and  the  country  by  arranging  so  as  to  get  him  a  farm,  as 
compared  to  a  cash  bonus  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  there  can  be  no  question  in  the  mind,  I  think,  of 
anv  fair-minded  person  that  the  advantage  both  to  the  individual 
and  to  the  country  is  much  greater  in  obtaining  a  farm  or  an  oppor- 
tunity to  get  a  farm,  or  to  get  a  home  and  produce  in  his  own  name 
and  in  his  own  right  than  any  cash  bonus  would  be.  I  will  say  that 
you  have  got  to  bear  in  mind  that  I  don't  think  this  bill  or  any  other 
bill  could  provide  a  farm  for  every  ex-soldier,  and  if  the  purpose  is 
to  compensate  every  man,  I  doubt  if  there  is  any  sort  of  a  land  bill 
that  could  be  devised,  or  any  kind  of  reclamation  project  that  would 
take  care  of  4,600.000  men.  ' 

Mr.  RAKER.  Don't  you  think  it  could  be  devised  to  take  care  of  all 
those  who  desired  to  get  a  home — and  in  speaking  of  a  home  now  I 
use  it  where  he  can  get  himself  a  house  and  get  land  to  till  in  connec- 
tion with  it,  so  that  he  can  rear  his  family  and  do  business  in  con- 
nection with  his  farm  or  in  the  adjoining  town,  wherever  he  may  lie. 

Mr.  JONES.  I  will  say  that  I  think  this  bill  here  will  provide  more 
good,  practical  farm  land  than  any  bill  that  I  have  seen  in  the  last 
two  years  since  the  war,  but  there  will  be  more  soldiers  looking  for 
land  under  this  bill  than  the  bill  will  provide  for  some  years  to  come, 
if  this  bill  were  enacted,  which  I  think  is  the  best  one  that  has  yet 
been  offered  from  a  practical  standpoint.  It  seems  to  have  been 
drawn  by  people  who  understand  the  land  situation.  I  have  worked 
on  farm  land  and  irrigated  valleys  myself,  and  know  something  about 
it :  and  also  it  is  the  most  liberal  bill  to  reclaim  and  make  available 
the  greatest  amount  of  land  of  any  bill  I  have  seen  yet.  but  if  this  bill 
were  enacted  in  its  present  form,  with  all  the  appropriation  provided 
for,  there  would  be  more  soldiers  clamoring  for  every  farm  you 
opened  up  for  a  number  of  years  to  come  than  there  would  be  farms 
available. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  would  you  include  in  this  the  handling  of  the 
swamp  land,  the  cut-over  land,  whereby  these  men  can  get  homes  and 
develop  the  country  as  well  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  would  be  glad  to  see  that  included,  if  it  can  be  in- 
cluded, in  as  practical  a  manner  as  the  arid  land  features  are  included. 
I  will  say  about  that— of  course,  I  am  not  a  land  expert,  and  the 
members  of  your  committee  know  more  about  it  than  I  do,  but  I 
happen  to  know  by  my  own  experience  something  about  the  value  of 
arid  lands  in  some  of  the  Western  States  when  the  water  is  put  on 
them.  I  know  that  the  increase  in  the  value  of  the  land  by  mere 
means  of  putting  water  on  it  is  so  great  that  if  that  increment  goes 
to  the  settler,  and  if  he  is  a  reasonably  energetic  fellow,  he  is  pretty 
nearly  sure  to  make  good  on  that  land  and  pay  for  it.  How  practical 
the  swamp-drainage  proposition  is  I  don't  know,  but  assuming  that 


102      DEyELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

it  is  equally  practical,  it  certainly  would  be  equally  advantageous  to 
the  ex-soldier. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  let  us  take  just  the  provisions  of  the  bill  relat- 
ing to  the  arid  and  semiarid  lands.  It  seems  like  everybody  that  has 
had  any  experience  and  knows  anything  about  what  this  land  will 
do  knows  what  can  be  done  on  it  with  benefit  to  the  Government 
generally,  the  State,  the  local  community,  and  the  man  himself:  why 
is  it,  from  your  observation,  that  we  can  not  get  consideration  from 
our  large  eastern  contingency  to  help  us  out,  to  develop  what  we 
know  has  been  done  for  the  last  30  years  and  more  >  That  is  what 
we  need  in  this,  and  that  is  what  we  want.  There  aren't  any  of  us 
but  what  know  the  benefits  of  irrigation.  The  question  is  that  we 
want  to  get  something  whereby  we  can  get  this  bill  through  and  get 
to  work;  and  what  is  the  matter? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  that  is  something  that  probably  the  members  of 
your  committee  have  encountered  as  much  as  I  have. 

Mr.  RAKER.  No;  now,  the  question  is,  you  are  representing  a  great 
organization;  you  are  in  touch  with  them:  you  are  publishing  a 
paper;  and  we  want  something  concrete — at  least  I  do — whereby  I 
can  get  hold  of  my  friends  here  in  the  East  to  get  them  to  support 
this  kind  of  legislation,  that  we  all  know  is  beneficial  and  ought  to  be 
adopted. 

Mi\  LYOX.  In  other  words,  you  want  help  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Help  is  what  we  want.  We  want  votes,  and  that  will 
bring  the  money. 

Mr.  JOXKS.  We  have  endeavored  with  our  own  publication  to 
arouse  that  same  interest  that  you  refer  to  in  the  Eastern  States.  I 
will  say  that,  editorially  speaking,  our  policy  is  always  to  urge  the 
posts  of  the  American  Legion  and  other  organizations  to  read  these 
bills  and  to  debate  them  on  the  floor— I  refer  to  all  bills  of  interest 
to  ex-soldiers — rather  than  to  take  our  word  for  it.  I  don't  think 
our  paper  has  said  that  this  bill  beats  any  other  bill,  but  we  have- 
said  that  we  will  supply  copies  of  this  bill  and  data  on  this  bill  to 
any  post,  any  organization  that  will  consider  it.  We  want  them  to 
debate  it  and  pass  resolutions  about  it  and  tell  their  Members  of  Con- 
gress about  it,  their  own  opinion  of  it,  and  understand  it. 

There  has  been  this  year  one  State  convention  of  the  American 
Legion  held.  That  was' the  Florida  State  convention.  I  went  down 
there  to  that  convention  to  speak  to  them,  and  the  day  I  got  there 
they  were  passing  resolutions  about  this  very  bill.  The  resolutions 
that  they  were  passing  had  the  thought  in  mind  that  it  was  a  bill  for 
the  development  of  arid  and  semiarid  lands  in  Western  States,  and 
they  have  some  swamp  lands  down  there,  and  they  wanted  them 
included  in  the  measure. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Where  was  that  '. 

Mr.  JOXKS.  The  Florida  State  convention  of  the  American  Legion. 
That  happened  to  be  the  first  State  convention  held  this  year.  There 
is  one  to  be  held  in  every  State. 

The  CHAIRMAN".  What  date  was  that  '. 

Mr.  JOXES.  The  17th  of  May. 

Mr.  LYOX.  Have  you  read  the  Bankhead  bill  ( 

Mr.  JOXES.  I  have  read  it;  I  could  not  say  carefully.  biruuse  I 
only  got  it  two  or  three  days  ago  from  Mr.  Bankhead.  with  his  ex- 
tension of  remarks  on  it. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES.      103 

Mr.  LYOX.  It  is  practically  the  same  as  the  Smith-McNary  bill, 
except  that  it  includes  reclamation  by  drainage. 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes;  it  includes  the  feature  of  the  Smith-McNary  bill, 
with  the  possibility  of  reclamation  by  drainage  of  swamp  lands  or 
the  reclamation  of  stump  lands,  and  with  an  additional  loan  feature 
in  there  similar  to  what  was  in  Senator  Borah's  bill  previously  intro- 
duced. 

Now  we  have  had  some  considerable  reaction  in  the  Northern 
States  and  in  the  eastern  tier  of  the  Northern  States  from  soldier 
organizations.  They  are  beginning  to  grasp  the  fact  that  a  land 
bill  is  of  interest  to  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is,  a  land  bill  in  preference  to  a  cash  bonus? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  have  never  myself,  and  our  paper  has  never  con- 
sidered this  bill  as  in  lieu  of  tlie  present  bonus  bill;  in  other  words, 
we  have  considered  this  as  a  land  bill  with  a  soldier  preference,  not 
as  a  substitute  for  the  Fordnev  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  not  speaking  with  reference  to  this  bill 
particularly,  but  with  reference  to  the  sentiment.  You  say  there 
has  been  a  reaction  that  has  taken  place;  now  that  reaction,  is  that 
in  favor  or  against  what  ?  You  say  some  change  in  sentiment  has 
taken  place;  what  is  the  change  in  sentiment  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  It  is  not  against  the  sentiment  for  cash  bonus,  I  don't 
think;  I  don't  believe  it  has  been  considered  in  that  light. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  do  you  mean  that  they  are  more  strongly 
in  favor  of  providing  for  homes  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  There  is  a  greater  interest  in  a  land  provision  of  this 
character.  This  land  bill,  for  example,  if  you  enacted  this  bill  and 
then  enacted  the  cash  bonus  bill,  a  man  might  use  his  bonus  to  take 
advantage  of  the  provisions  of  this  bill.  I  see  nothing  in  this  b  11 
that  could  be  considered  a  bonus  bill. 

Mr.  JONES.  As  it  stands,  2913  does  not  provide  either  a  bonus  or  a 
loan.  It  is  a  land  settlement  bill  with  a  very  liberal  preference  to 
soldiers,  a  preference  so  liberal  that  if  you  enact  the  bill,  for  the  first 
10  years  anyhow  every  acre  of  surplus  land  will  go  to  soldiers,  I 
don't  think  there  is  a  doubt  about  that  from  the  experience  we  have 
had  of  the  soldier  demand  for  land.  I  think  every  acre  of  land  for 
10  years,  and  probably  for  the  life  of  the  bill,  or  for  20  years,  would 
be  claimed  by  ex-soldiers  under  that  six  months'  preference. 

In  the  Eastern  States  I  have  also  found  a  considerable  interest 
arising  in  the  employment  preference,  which  is  also  contained  in  that 
that  bill,  2913.  That  is  not  stated  in  very  specific  terms,  but  I  believe 
it  is  mandatory  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  shall  give  the  prefer- 
ence of  employment  on  reclamation  projects  to  ex-soldiers.  Now  I 
believe — and  that  seems  to  be  the  sentiments  of  the  soldier  organiza- 
tions that  have  considered  the  bill — that  to  the  easterner,  the  factory 
worker,  and  he  is  the  fellow  who  right  now  is  unemployed  to  an  ex- 
tent, considering  the  unemployment  problem,  the  unemployed  in 
the  cities  of  the  East  would  immediately  take  advantage  of  that  em- 
ployment feature.  If  they  could  go  west  with  the  assurance  of  a  job, 
and  if  that  bill  were  enacted  you  would  find  your  American  Legion 

Eosts  a*nd  your  veterans  of  foreign  wars  posts  to  some  extent  would 
ecome  employment  agencies  for  men  to  go  out  and  work  on  reclama- 
tion projects  under  that  preference  that  is  given  them  there;  that  the 
city  man  would,  by  the  nature  of  that  employment  have  an  oppor- 


104      DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

tunity  to  become  familiar  with  the  climatic  and  crop  conditions  and 
the  other  conditions  in  Western  States  where  land  was  being  made 
available,  and  also  to  earn  money  for  a  period  of  possibly  a  year  or 
more,  and  saving  it  towards  land  payments  or  for  buildings"on  the 
buildings  on  the  land  or  whatever  he  might  need.  In  that  combi- 
nation of  the  employment  preference  with  the  settlement  preference, 
the  city  man  who  wants  to  get  a  toehold  in  the  soil  would  have  a  very 
excellent  opportunity. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  It  has  been  urged  that  now  is  not  the  proper  time 
to  undertake  a  policy  of  reclamation,  because  of  the  heavy  burden 
of  expenditures  under  which  the  Government  labors  as  a  "result  of 
the  war:  that  we  should  practice  retrenchment  rather  than  expan- 
sion of  governmental  activities.  I  would  like  to  get  your  viewpoint 
on  that  question.  Do  you  believe  that  the  construction  of  recla- 
mation projects  should  be  undertaken  so  as  to  provide  employment 
for  ex-service  men  ? 

Mr.  JOXES.  The  United  States  Department  of  Labor  can  not  tell 
us  from  their  statistics  what  portion  of  the  unemployed,  as  they 
have  been  listed,  are  ex-service  men.  I  know  pretty  well  from  our 
own  business  records,  especially  our  subscription"  sales  and  our 
news-stand  sales,  which  are  falling  off  in  industrial  centers,  what  the 
situation  is.  For  example,  a  year  and  a  half  ago  our  biggest  sales  in 
proportion  to  population  of  any  city  in  the  United  States  were  in 
Akron,  Ohio.  Akron,  Ohio,  is  a  rubber-tire  town.  That  business 
is  all  shot  to  pieces.  I  think  our  best  large  city  was  Detroit.  Mich., 
and  our  sales,  both  news-stand  sales  and  subscriptions,  are  all  to  ex- 
service  men,  98  per  cent  of  them.  A  few  other  people  buy  the  paper, 
but  practically  they  are  entirely  ex-service  men.  In  Detroit  our 
business  is  falling  down  very  materially.  In  the  agricultural  com- 
munities the  drop  has  been  much  less,  and  in  some  cases  a  gain;  in 
fact,  it  happens  that  in  some  places  business  is  increasing  in  spite  of 
the  slack  times,  but  there  has  been  a  material  decrease  in  the  in- 
dustrial centers,  so  that  we  know  that  the  unemployment  in  those 
centers  certainly  affects  the  ex-service  men  in  great  numbers. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  What  about  this  six-months  period  here  (re- 
ferring to  H.  R.  2913)  to  give  the  ex-service  men  a  preference  {  Do 
you  think  that  long  a  time  is  r. « 

Mr.  JOXES.  That  is  the  six-months  preference  to  soli: 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON".  Yes.  Wouldn't  a  shorter  period  of  time  accom- 
plish the  purpose  \ 

Mr.  JOXES.  I  think  at  the  present  time  the  60-day  preference  is 
accomplishing  it.  That  is  because  other  functions'  such  as  the 
newspaper  I  represent,  accelerate  the  Government's  advertising 
methods.  The  Government  does  not  do  much  to  advertise  land 
openings.  Under  the  ordinary  routine  the  land  office  publishes  a 
notice  in  certain  papers  for  a  certain  number  of  days,  but  it  so  hap- 
pens that  there  are  special  publications  like  ours  with  soldier  interests 
involved  that  do  the  advertising. 

Mr.  HERRICK.  There  is  a  little  thought  that  I  might  give  you  here 
that  might  be  of  use  to  you.  and  that  is  this:  When  you  are  going 
to  reach  the  soldier  through  the  ordinary  country  weekly  newspaper 
you  must  figure  that  they  have  a  great  tendency  to  publish  a  piece 
of  vital  news  just  about  a  week  or  10  days  after  the  usefulness  of  the 
publication  has  ceased  to  exist. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.     105 

I  will  cite  a  little  case  in  point:  On  the  4th  day  of  May,  and  while 
we  had  this  Army  appropriation  bill  under  consideration,  I  noticed  a 
clause  in  it  that  on  June  1  the  statute  of  limitations  would  lapse  on 
some  of  these  accouterments  to  which  the  soldier  was  entitled  at  the 
time  of  his  discharge,  or  up  to  June  1,  such  as  uniforms,  etc.,  and  I 
took  the  trouble  to  get  out  a  mimeographed  letter  and  inclosed  a 
blank — I  got  out  a  blank  showing  them  what  they  were  entitled  to 
and  I  got  a  form  of  application  and  got  out  this  mimeographed  letter 
containing  this  information,  you  know,  and  I  sent  it  to  every  Legion 
post  in  the  State  of  Oklahoma,  not  merely  in  my  own  district  but 
to  every  Legion  post  in  the  State  of  Oklahoma.  This  morning  I 
opened  some  country  newspapers  that  come  to  my  office  and  I 
noticed  that  letter  published  under  date  of  June  2  and  8,  and  now 
you  see  the  time  has  expired.  I  never  noticed  the  publication  of 
that  letter  in  any  of  the  papers  until  this  morning. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Isn't  it  probable  that  you  were  about  a  week  late  in 
sending  out  that  notice  ? 

Mr.  HERRICK.  No;  it  was  mailed  out  on  May  4,  and  the  time  did 
not  expire  until  June  1. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Your  newspapers  are  evidently  a  little  slow  down  there. 

Mr.  JOXES.  Well,  I  would  say  that  if  you  had  to  depend  entirely 
on  Government  channels  to  inform  the  ex-soldier  of  his  rights  and 
of  his  preference  rights  on  each  particular  project  that  six  months 
would  be  a  very  safe  time.  I  think  that  so  long  as  you  can  rely  on 
private  channels,  such  as  the  veterans'  organizations  and  veterans' 
newspapers,  under  the  60-day  preference  they  would  get  all  the  lands. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Isn't  it  the  real  crux  of  the  thing  to  get  him  something 
or  to  give  him  an  opportunity  to  get  something  first  ?  Because  it  has 
been  developed  so  far  that  where  there  has  been  an  opening  there 
have  been  about  100,  if  not  more,  applications  to  each  piece  of  land 
for  disposition. 

Mr.  JOXES.  There  have  been  and  there  will  continue  and  there  are 
soldiers  right  to-day  taking  up  homestead  lands  in  the  so-called  dry 
farming  areas,  which  are  some  of  them  awfully  dry,  taking  up  land 
that  is  pretty  nearly  hopeless,  and  you  gentlemen  from  some  of  the 
Western  States,  Idaho  and  Montana,  know  that  some  of  those 
alleged  dry  farming  areas — that  men  have  gone  in  there  and  have 
been  burned  out,  and  a  good  many  of  them  have  treked  out  of 
eastern  Montana  back  into  Dakota  as  though  they  were  going  to 
paradise,  and  Dakota  was  not  considered  a  paradise  when  I  lived  in 
Minnesota.  But  I  know  there  are  men  going  right  in  and  taking  up 
land  in  areas  where  farming  has  been  a  flat  failure,  simply  because 
they  have  got  that  ambition  to  get  hold  of  some  land  and  believe 
that  somehow  they  will  make  good  on  it  whether  nature  smiles  on 
them  or  not.  Some  of  them  are  going  into  places  where  they  don't 
get  a  crop  of  wheat  once  in  seven  years. 

Mr.  RAKER.  We  ought  to  be  fair  and  frank  enough  to  know  and 
to  say  that  in  all  these  States  where  there  is  Government  land  and 
where  there  is  private  land,  unless  you  have  got  water  on  it  you  are 
throwing  your  money  away  to  try  to  do  anything  with  it.  There  is 
no  need  of  disguising  that  fact. 

Mr.  JOXES.  I  think  that  the  land  office  and  the  Reclamation 
Service  are  performing  a  genuine  service  so  far  as  we  have  checked 


106      DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

up  on  it,  in  telling  soldiers  that  just  because  it  is  Government  land 
and  open  to  entry  does  not  mean  that  it  is  any  good.  I  know  they 
have  gone  as  far  as  they  could  in  that. 

Mr.  KAKER.  The  land  is  as  good  as  any  land  that  ever  laid  out  of 
doors,  climatic  conditions  and  other  conditions  are  right,  but  you 
can't  do  anything  unless  you  have  got  water  on  it.  Xow  it  is  so 
arranged  that  all  the  small  streams  nearby  are  taken  up  and  you 
have  got  to  go  to  large  expense  in  building  reservoirs  and  canals 
to  get  water  on  there,  and  that  is  what  we  want  to  do  with  this  kind 
of  legislation. 

Mr.  JOXES.  This  gentleman  here  asked  me  a  moment  ago  about 
the  expense  involved  to  the  Government  at  the  present  time  in 
undertaking  a  project  or  a  series  of  projects  that  this  bill  provides. 
I  think  the  best  answer  to  that  consists  in  Congressman  Bankhead's 
remarks  on  his  bill,  in  which  he  said  that  the  entire  cost  of  it  would 
be  about  the  cost  of  one  first-class  fighting  ship,  and  he  estimated 
for  that  expense  100,000  citizens  would  be  placed  on  farms.  I  think 
that  is  a  conservative  estimate. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  You  would  rather  see  them  spend  the  money  to  give 
people  a  chance  to  farm  than  to  spend  it  on  fighting  ships  I 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  that  it  would  be  highly  practical  to  lessen  our 
armament  program  to  the  extent  of  one  fighting  ship  if  you  could 
put  100,000  people  on  farms,  on  new  land  that  is  not  now  cultivated. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  What  is  the  use  of  omitting  just  one  ship?  How 
about  knocking  off  five  or  ten  of  them  and  putting  the  money  into 
soldier  farms  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  don't  think  that  I  had  better  go  into  the  affairs  of 
the  Foregin  Relations  Committee  that  far. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  The  thought  I  had  in  mind  was  that  if  there  is 
serious  unemployment  in  the  country  which  extends  to  the  ex-service 
man,  and  if  we  are  further  aware  that  the  enactment  of  any  legis- 
lation giving  them  a  preference  means  that  practically  every  farm 
unit  opened  to  entry  will  be  settled  upon  by  a  soldier,  it  would  seem 
to  me  that  under  such  circumstances  Congress  is  especially  justified 
in  beginning  a  general  reclamation  program  now.  The  need  of 
employment  for  ex-service  men  is  an  argument  in  favor  of  prompt 
action  on  some  measure  of  this  kind  rather  than  for  delay. 

Mr.  JONES.  That  is  absolutely  my  opinion.  I  think  you  will  find  it 
the  opinion  of  everybody  in  the  ex-service  men's  organizations. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  You  mentioned  some  action  taken  by  the  Legion  in 
the  State  of  Florida.  Do  you  anticipate  that  if  this  bill  was  reported 
out,  which  merely  applies  to  the  Western  States  where  irrigation  is 
practiced,  that  similar  action  will  be  taken  in  other  States  of  the 
South  or  of  the  East,  urging  that  they  have  swamp  lands  or  cut-over 
lands  which  might  be  reclaimed,  that  the  legislation  should  be 
broadened  to  care  for  the  development  of  such  lands? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  you  will  find  that  will  happen.  L'nfortunately 
it  has  been  the  history  of  lots  of  different  kinds  of  legislation  for  a 
good  many  years  that  there  is  a  tendency  for  different  localities  in  the 
country  to  take  a  very  strong  interest  in  their  local  or,  you  might  say, 
their  selfish  interests  in  the  matter.  So  far  as  the  ex-soldiers  are 
concerned,  our  point  of  view  is  that  we  want  to  see  western  lands 
developed;  we  want  to  see  southern  lands  developed;  we  want  to  see 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UXITED  STATES.      107 

any  land  developed  that  a  soldier  can  settle  on,  if  it  can  be  developed 
at  such  a  low  cost  and  create  such  an  increment  that  the  soldier  gets 
a  real  chance.  Xow  we  believe — I  believe  very  firmly — that  2913  as  it 
affects  western  lands  is  a  practical  bill,  that  it  will  make  land  available 
at  a  price  that  the  settler  can  pay  for  it,  and  gives  a  preference  whereby 
the  soldier  will  be  the  settler.  That  doesn't  mean  that  we  have  any 
prejudice  against  any  southern  amendment  or  the  amendment  of 
anybody  else  covering  any  other  kind  of  land. 

Mr.  LYOX.  Your  paper  is  published  here  in  Washington,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  JOXES.  Yes. 

Mr.  LYOX.  I  would  be  mighty  glad  in  the  case  of  one  or  two  gentle- 
men that  we  are  going  to  try  to  get  before  this  committee  on  that 
question,  if  you  would  come  in  and  hear  those  gentlemen  on  the  ques- 
tion of  reclamation  of  swamp  lands  and  cut-over  lands,  the  cost  of  it, 
and  how  soon  it  will  pay  for  itself. 

Mr.  JOXES.  I  am  very  much  interested  in  it.  In  fact,  I  have  talked 
to  Congressman  Bankhead  about  this  bill  and  have  made  some  inves- 
tigation on  the  subject,  but  not  to  the  extent  that  I  have  on  this 
other  measure. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Mr.  Jones,  now  if  you  will  continue  in  your  own 
way,  if  you  have  any  other  observations,  if  you  have  any  other  ideas 
to  present  on  the  bill. 

Mr.  JOXES.  We  furnished  the  Senate  Committee  on  Irrigation  some 
data,  which  I  have  no  copy  of,  but  which  is  presented  in  their  hearings 
on  this  same  bill,  some  data  from  the  Canadian  board  of  soldire 
settlement,  which  I  believe  your  committee  will  find  very  interesting 
and  very  informative.  It  is  not  an  annual  report  but  a  semiannual 
report  of  November  30  last  on  the  soldier  settlement  work  in  Canada, 
where  they  undertook  to  settle  soldiers  on  the  land,  in  fact,  before  the 
armistice.  They  had  wounded  soldiers  returning,  of  course,  even  at 
the  end  of  the  war,  and  I  believe  enacted  their  law  about  that  time. 
That  is  on  page  31,  second  session  of  the  Senate  hearings  on  this 
same  bill,  and  the  particular  point  in  it  that  I  want  to  emphasize  is 
the  very  small  number  of  changes  which  have  been  experienced  of 
the  soldier  farmers  in  Canada.  I  will  say  that  they  took  men  from 
the  cities  and  from  the  country,  and  anybody  that  applied,  although 
if  a  man  applied  who  knew  nothing  about  farming — that  is  a  loan 
measure,  ndt  a  reclamation  measure — it  is  a  farm-buying  loan  measure, 
but  the}*  would  take  any  man  that  applied,  except  if  a  man  had  abso- 
lutely no  experience  in  farming,  their  soldier  settlement  board  was 
authorized  to  place  him  in  training  under  a  farmer.  That  meant 
practically  making  him  an  apprentice  for  a  period  of  three  months. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Did  they  try  that  out  ? 

Mr.  JOXES.  The  training? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Yes. 

Mr.  JOXES.  A  very  small  number  took  the  training.  The  reason 
for  the  small  number  taking  the  training,  I  think,  was  that  they  only 
paid  them  810  a  month  during  the  period  of  training,  and  up  until 
last  July  there  were  plenty  of  jobs  at  good  wages  in  the  cities,  the 
same  as  there  were  here,  and  men  were  not  willing  to  go  into  training 
for  S10  a  month  for  any  purpose. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  Did  they  make  any  report  on  the  training  as  to 
the  effect,  the  benefit  of  the  training  '( 


108      DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE   UNITED   STATES. 


Mr.  JONES.  There  is  a  report  on  the  number  of  men  in  training. 
but  I  don't  think  it  is  contained  in  this  tabulation. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  What  is  that  Senate  report  you  have  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  This  is  part  2  of  the  Senate  hearings  before  the  Com- 
mittee on  Irrigation  and  Reclamation  on  Senate  536.  That  is  the 
same  as  H.  R.  2913. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Just  state  what  that  part  is,  and  we  will  have  it 
put  into  the  record. 

Mr.  JONES.  That  is  just  a  table  on  page  31  of  those  hearings.  I 
can  leave  you  this  copy. 

(The  paper  referred  to  follows :) 

WAR  TO  PEACE — TABLOID  STATEMENT  OP  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  BOARD  OPERATIONS. 
Summary  of  operations,  Xcr. 

Number  of  veterans  in  communication  with  board 100. 000 

Number  applied  for  privileges  of  act 

Xumber  accepted  as  qualified  to  farm 41.  906 

Number  qualified  but  not  yet  located 21 . 975 

Number  in  training  under  supervision  of  board 916 

Number  completed  training 1, 444 

LOANS. 

Number  granted  loans 19.  931 

Amount  of  loans  approved £ ';-« '•.  302.  649 

Number  of 

loans.  Amount. 

P.  E.  I .   ..    . 

N.  S .....3  l.J'7.448 

X.  B 511  1.463,602 

Que 

Ont 1.405  6,07 

Man ;•  T.',.  304.  07fi 

Sask 4.893  19.947.706 

Alta 5.727  ±2.906,504 

B.  C 2.944  12.596,649 

19. 931  80.  302.  649 

Amount  of  loans  disbursed *70.  2S1.872 

Initial  payments  on  land  purchasc-d 

Number  liable  for  repayments  Nov.  1 12.  507 

Number  who  made  repayments *  7.  470 

Amount  due '. S2,  334. 174 

Ajmount  repaid 

Number  who  have  repaid  loans  in  full 201 

ADJUSTMENTS. 

Number  of  failures  and  changes  of  ownership  adjusted 166 

Amount  invested  in  these  farms >t)20,  869 

Amount  realized  in  resale  of  farm  and  equipment  (showing  average  loss  of 

$38  per  farm  I §'-514,  548 


'Or  59.7  percent. 


*  Or  53.7  percent. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.     109 

AREA    OF    SOLDIER    LANDS. 

Area  of  new  land  broken  ("West  only),  acres 202,  730 

Area  of  land  taken  up  by  soldier  settlers,  acres 3, 371, 000 

Savins;  in  purchase  of  land  ( estimated) $2,  700, 000 

(This  is  based  on  exact  figures  from  several  districts.) 

STOCK   AND    EQUIPMENT. 

S.  &  E.  purchased  for  soldier  settlers $22,619,759 

Saving  to  settlers  through  special  arrangements  with  dealers $742,  568 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Are  the  soldiers  assisted  financially,  otherwise  than 
getting  the  lands  in  Canada,  as  to  farming  implements,  stock,  and 
buildings  ? 

Mr.  JOXES.  They  were  given  loans  either  for  lands,  live  stock,  or 
purchase  of  implements.  There  has  been  a  total  of  58,811  applicants 
for  loans  in  Canada. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Government  loans  ? 

Mr.  JOXES.  Government  loans,  yes. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  It  is  something  like  Ireland  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  don't  know  about  that. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSOX.  Those  loans  have  not  been  out  long  enough  vet 
to  know  whether  or  not  they  will  be  taken  care  of  by  the  ex-service 
men,  have  they  ? 

Mr.  JOXES.  Some  of  them  have  been  out  a  period  of  two  years. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Jones,  what  you  are  referring  to  now  is  to  your 
own  testimony  before  the  Senate  committee  ? 

Mr.  JOXES.  Yes.  The  particular  point  I  wanted  to  make  was  that 
out  of  41,000  loans  that  have  been  made — 41,906 — their  board  had 
had  166  failures.  The  Canadian  law  gives  their  board  very  wide 
authority  in  supervising  the  settler  after  he  goes  on  the  land.  If  he 
has  one  of  these  Government  loans,  they  can  watch  him  and  check 
up  on  his  work,  and,  in  fact,  have  almost  arbitrary  authority  to  call 
in  his  loan  if  he  shows  no  energy  or  purpose  and  no  likelihood  to 
succeed  as  a  farmer.  But  out  of  this  very  small  number  of  failures, 
where  they  have  called  in  loans  and  put  a  man  off  the  land  and  taken 
over  his  land,  they  took  those  farms  and  resold  them,  and  they 
suffered  a  net  loss  of  only  $38  per  farm.  In  other  words,  the  Cana- 
dian Government's  loss  on  loans,  where  they  did  make  a  loss,  in  166 
out  of  41.000  cases,  was  only  $38  per  farm.  In  other  words,  thev 
lost  only  about  84,000  in  all. " 

Mr.  RAKER.  Have  you  that  Canadian  law  that  authorizes  this 
system  of  placing  the  ex-service  men  on  these  farms  and  providing 
their  loans  ? 

Mr.  JOXES.  I  haven't  a  copy  of  the  act,  but  I  can  get  a  copy. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Will  you  get  it  and  insert  it  in  your  hearing? 

Mr.  JOXES.  Yes.  I  am  in  constant  correspondence  with  that  land- 
settlement  board;  in  fact,  I  hope  to  get  their  annual  report.  If  I  do, 
I  will  be  glad  to  send  the  committee  a  copy  of  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  you  will  insert  that? 

Mr.  JOXES.  Yes;  certainly. 


110      DEVELOPMENT    OF    AGRICULTURE    IX    THE    UNITED   STATES. 

(The  paper  referred  to  follows:) 

EXHIBIT  A. 
9-10  GEORGE  V. 

CHAP.  71. 
An  Act  to  assist  Returned  Soldiers  in  settling  upon  the  Land. 

[Assented  to  7th  July.  1919.] 

HIS  Majesty,  by  and  -with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Com- 
mons of  Canada,  enacts  as  follows:  — 

PART   I. 

THE  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  BOARD—  ACQUIREMENT  OF  LAXDS. 
SHORT  TITLE. 

1.  This  Act  may  be  cited  as  The  Soldier  Settlement  Act,  1919. 

INTERPRETATION'. 

2.  In  this  Act,  and  in  any  regulations  made  under  it,  unless  the  context  otherwise- 
requires,  the  expression,  — 

(a)  "Agricultural  land"  means  land  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board,  is  adaptable 
for  agricultural  purposes  and  the  value  whereof  for  any  other  purpose  is  not  greater 
than  its  value  for  agricultural  purposes; 

(6)  "Block"  means  a  parcel  or  parcels  of  land  owned  within  a  settlement  area  by 
any  person,  and  whether  or  not  the  parcels  are  contiguous  the  one  to  the  other, 
but  including  only  the  parcels  any  part  of  any  one  whereof  is  situated  within- 
three  miles  from  any  part  of  another  of  them; 

(<•)  "Board"  means  the  Soldier  Settlement  Board  of  Canada; 
.  (d)  "Court"  means  the  Exchequer  Court  of  Canada: 

(e)  "District  Superintendent"  means  a  person  appointed  as  such  by  the  Board; 

(/)  "Dominion  Lands"  means  any  lands  owned  or  held  by  the  Dominion  of  Canada, 
excepting  Indian  or  School  Lands; 

(g)  "Former  Act"  means  The  Soldier  Settlement  Act,  1917; 

(h}  "Gazetted"  means  published  in  the  Canada  Gazette; 

(?)  "Land"  or  "Lands"  includes  granted  or  ungranted.  Dominion.  Provincial  or 
private  lands,  and  real  or  immovable  property,  messuages,  lands,  tenements  and 
hereditaments  of  any  tenure,  and  real  rights,  easements  and  servitudes,  streams,. 
watercourses,  waters,  roads  and  ways,  and  all  rights  or  interests  in,  or  over,  or 
arising  out  of.  and  all  charges  upon.  "land  or  lands  as  herein  denned: 

(j)  "Military"  and  "Military  forces"  include  "Naval"  and  "Naval  forces;" 
)  "Minister"  means  the  Minister  of  the  Interior; 

"Property"  includes  land,  as  herein  defined,  and  goods,  chattels  real  and  per- 
sonal, and  personal  or  movable  property,  and  all  rights  or  interests  in.  or  over, 
or  arising  out  of,  and  all  charges  upon,  property  a?  herein  defined: 

(TO)  "Owner"  includes  a  person  holding  private  land  in  fee  simple,  and  a  person 
who,  being  trustee,  executor,  administrator,  life  tenant,  mortgagee  or  otherwise, 
has  the  legal  power  to  will  or  convey  i  whether  with  or  without  the  consent  or 
approval  of  a  court  or  of  any  person  having  any  estate  or  interest)  such  land  to  be 
held  in  fee  simple  or  by  a  person  as  the  owner  tl" 

(n)  "Permanent  Improvements"  and  "Improvements"  includes  buildings; 

(o)  "Private  land"  means  any  land  which  has  been  alienated  by  the  <'rown: 

(/>)  "Registrar  of  deeds"  or  "Registrar"  includes  the  registrar  of  land  titles,  or 
other  officer,  with  whom,  according  to  the  law  of  a  province,  title  to  land  is  regis- 
tered; 

(q)  "Registry  of  deeds"  or  other  words  descriptive  of  the  office  of  a  registrar  of 
deeds,  inc.udes  the  land  titles  office,  or  other  office  in  which,  according  to  the- 
law  of  a  province,  title  to  land  is  registered; 


(j 
(k 

(/) 


DEVELOPMENT.  OF  AGRICULTURE  IX   THE    UNITED   STATES.      Ill 

(n  "Settlement  area''  means  an  area  of  land  in  any  part  of  Canada,  so  designated, 
and  denned  as  this  Act  requires  by  the  Board,  within  which  the  Board  exercises 
or  proposes  to  exercise,  its  power  of  compulsorily  purchasing  lands; 

(s)  "Settler"  means  a  person  who  at  any  time  during  the  war  has  been  therein 
engaged  on  active  service  in  a  military  force. — 

(1)  of  Canada — and  has  served  out  of  Canada;  or.  wherever  he  may  have 
served,  is.  by  reason  of  disability  incurred  or  aggravated  as  the  result  of  such 
service,  in  receipt  of  a  pension;  or, 

(2)  of  His  Majesty  or  of  any  of  His  Majesty's  Allies — and,  being  ordinarily 
resident  in  Canada  when  he  enlisted  in  or  otherwise  became  a  member  of 
such  force,  has  served  thereafter  out  of  Canada,  in  a  theatre  of  actual  war;  or, 

(3)  of  His  Majesty  or  of  any  British  Dominion  or  Colony — and  has  served  out 
of  the  country  "wherein  he  enlisted  or  otherwise  became  a  member  of  such 
force  in  a  theatre  of  actual  war; 

and  has  been  otherwise  than  dishonourably  discharged  from  such  force,  or  has 
been  permitted  to  honourably  resign  or  retire  therefrom,  or,  without  fault  on  his 
part,  has  been  dispensed  from  further  service  therein;  and  the  widow  of  any 
person  who  died  on  active  service  and  who.  but  for  his  death,  might  be  a  settleV 
as  now  denned,  shall  be  capable  of  being  a  settler  in  her  deceased  husband's 
right:  Provided  that,  notwithstanding  anything  in  this  Act,  settlers  of  the  class 
numbered  (3)  in  this  definition  may  be  required  by  the  Board  to  provide  a  larger 
cash  down  payment  in  case  of  purchase  of  property  from  the  Board  or  to  provide 
great?r  or  other  security  in  case  of  an  advance  or  loan  received  from  the  Board, 
than  is  by  this  Act  authorized  or  required  with  respect  to  settlers  generally; 

(t)  "Special  Settler''  means  a  settler  as  defined  in  this  section,  who,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Board,  has  had  adequate  and  successful  farming  experience  in  Canada, 
and  who  is  possessed  of  qualifications  or  equipment  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Board,  specially  fit  him  for  success  as  a  farmer; 

(u)  "  Soldier  grant "  means  a  free  entry  on  Dominion  Lands,  granted  by  the  Minister 
to  a  settler  recommended  by  the  Board; 

(r)  "This  Act''  and  "Act"  and  "Former  Act"  includes  regulations  lawfully  made 
thereunder; 

(w)  "The  \\ar  "  means  the  war  declared  by  His  Majesty  on  the  fourth  day  of  August, 
1914,  against  the  Empire  of  Germany  and,  subsequently,  against  other  powers. 

CONSTITUTION    OF   THE    BOARD. 

3.  (1)  The  Soldier  Settlement  Board,  as  constituted  pursuant  to  the  former  Act, 
shall  continue  to  consist  of  three  commissioners,  each  to  hold  office  during  good  be- 
haviour, but  to  be  removable  by  the  Governor  in  Council  at  any  time  for  cause  and 
to  become  ineligible  upon  attaining  seventy  years  of  age.     The  Governor  in  Council 
shall  appoint  one  of  such  commissioners  to  be" Chairman  of  the  Board. 

There  shall  be  paid,  monthly,  to  the  chairman  of  the  Board  and  to  each  of  the 
other  commissioners,  such  salaries,  and  at  such  rate  per  annum,  as  the  Governor  in 
Council  shall  fix  and  allow. 

CORPORATE   POWERS    OF   THE    BOARD. 

4.  (1)  For  the  purposes  of  acquiring,  holding,  conveying,  and  transferring,  and  of 
agreeing  to  convey,  acquire  or  transfer  any  of  the  property  which  it  is  by  this  Act 
authorized  to  acquire,  hold,  convey,  transfer,  agree'  to  convey  or  agree  to  transfer, 
but  for  such  purposes  only,  the  Board  shall  be  and  be  deemed  a  body  corporate, 
and  as  such  the  agent  of  the  Crown  in  the  right  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada.     Anv 
and  all  property  acquired  by  the  Board  shall,  upon  acquirement,  vest  in  the  Board 
as  such  body  corporate;  but  these  provisions  shall  not  in  any  wise  restrict,  impair 
or  affect  the  powers  conferred  upon  the  Board,  generally,  by  this  Act.  nor  subject 
it  to  the  provisions  of  any  enactment  of  the  Dominion  or  of  any  province  respecting 
corporations,  nor  require  of  it,  in  the  keeping  of  its  records,  any  segregation  of  its 
corporate  from  its  non-corporate  acts. 

(2)  The  Board,  in  its  corporate  capacity,  shall  have  an  impress  seal  inscribed 
with  the  words  "The  Soldier  Settlement  Board  of  Canada  '  and  shewing  the  coat  of 
arms  of  Canada. 

(3)  All  documents  which  require  execution  by  the  Board  in  its  corporate  capacity- 
shall  be  deemed  validly  executed  if  the  seal  of  the  Board  is  affixed,  and  the  name 
of  one  of  the  commissi  sners  is  signed,  by  such  commisvimer  thereto,  the  whole  in 
the  presence  of  one  other  person  who  has  subscribed  his  name  a  ;  witness:  and  every 
document  which  purports  to  be  impressed  with  the  seal  of  the  Board  and  to  be  sealed 


112       DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

and  signed  in  the  presence  of  a  witness  by  a  commissioner  on  behalf  of  the  Board 
shall  be  admiissble  in  evidence  in  all  courts  in  Canada  without  proof  of  such  seal 
or  of  such  sealing  or  signing. 

EMPLOYEES. 

5.  The  Board  may,  from  time  to  time,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  The  Civil  Service 
Act,  1918,  attach  to  its  service  such  officers,  instructors,  clerks,  stenographers  and 
other  employees  as  the  execution  of  the  purposes  of  this  Act  may  require,  and  at 
such  salaries'  as  the  Governor  in  Council  may  approve.     All  such  appointees  shall 
hold  office  during  the  pleasure  of  the  Board  and  shall  perform  such  duties  and  func- 
tions as  the  Board  shall  prescribe. 

RESERVATION    AND    ACQUIREMENT    OF    LANDS    AND    OTHER   PROPERTY. 

6.  (])  The  Minister  may,  at  the  request  of  the  Board,  for  the  execution  of  any  of 
the  purposes  of  this  Act,  reserve,  or,  with  the  approval  of  the  Governor  in  Council, 
transfer,  to  the  Board,  any  Dominion  lands  which  are  under  the  Minister's  adminis- 
tration. 

(2)  Any  reservation  of  lands  made  pursuant  to  this  section  shall  lapse  and  become 
determined  whenever  the  Minister  shall,  before  transfer  made  to  the  Board,  so  direct. 

7.  The  Board  may,  for  the  execution  of  any  of  the  purposes  of  this  Act — 
(o)  purchase  by  agreement,  at  prices  which  to  it  shall  seem  reasonable;  or, 

(6)  in  any  other  manner  acnuire  by  consent  or  agreement,  from  all  persons,  firms  and 
corporations,  such  agricultural  land,  situate  in  any  part  o1'  Canada,  and  such  live 
stock,  farm  equipment  and  building  materials  as  it  may  deem  necessary. 

8.  The  Board  may,  for  the  execution  of  any  of  the  purposes  of  this  Art,  acquire 
by  way  of  compulsory  purchase,  in  the  manner  provided  by  Part  III  of  this  Act, 
from  all  persons,  firms,  and  corporations,  such  agricultural  land  as  it  may  deem 
necessary. 

9.  (1)  "The  Board  may,  with  the  approval  of  the  Governor  in  Council,  arrange  Avith 
the  Government  of  any  province. — 

(a)  for  the  acquiring  or  utili  ing  for  any  of  the  purposes  of  this  Act  of  any  Crown 
or  other  agricultural  lands  of  such  province;  and. 

(fc)  the  terms  and  conditions  upon  which  the  Board  will  acquire,  hold  and  dispose 
of  or  Anil  utilize  such  lands,  or  upon  which  it  will  assist  settlers  to  whom  such 
province  itself  shall  grant  or  convey  any  of  such  lands,  such  terms  and  conditions 
to  be,  as  nearly  as  possible,  the  same  as  those  which  are  by  or  under  this  ^ct 
pro  ,ided  with  respect  to  settlers  to  whom  the  Board  shall  sell  lands  acquired  by  it. 

10.  The  Board  may  acquire  from  His  Majesty  by  purchase,  upon  terms  not  incon- 
sistent v>ith  those  of  the  release  or  surrender,  any  Indian  lands  which,  under  the 
Indian  Act,  have  been  validly  released  or  surrendered. 

11.  (1 )  Notwithstanding  anything  in  The  Dominion  Lands  A't  having  reference  to 
school  lands,  the  Governor  in  Council  may,  for  such  price  as  two  arbitrators,  one 
thereof  appointed  by  the  Minister  and  the  other  by  the  Governor  of  the  Province 
concerned,  shall  in  writing  certify  to  the  Minister  as  fair  and  reasonable,  grant  or 
convey  to  the  Board  any  school  lands  held  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  that  Act. 

(2)  The  amount  payable  by  the  Board  for  the  acquirement  of  such  lands  shall  be 
applied  as  if  received  as  the  proceeds  of  a  sale  of  the  same  lands  made  pursuant  to  the 
provisions  of  The  Dominion  Lands  Ad. 

12.  The  valuation  of  any  land  purchased  or  proposed  to  be  purchased  by  the  Board, 
whether  by  agreement  or  compulsorily,  shall  not  be  enhanced  merely  because  its 
value  has,  by  reason  or  in  consequence  of  settlement  or  settlement  operations  in  the 
vicinity  thereof  in  execution  of  any  of  the  purposes  of  this  Act,  become  enhanced ; 
and,  in  the  absence  of  satisfactory  proof  to  a  contrary  effect,  any  enhancement  in 
the  value  of  "^he  land  which  has  ensued  subsequent  to  such  settlement  or  settlement 
operations  shall  be  deemed  to  have  ensued  by  reason  or  in  consequence  of  such  set- 
tlement or  settlement  operations,  and  the  value  of  the  land  at  the  time  of  its  pur- 
chase by  the>4Joard  shall  be  deemed  not  greater  than  its  value  prior  to  such  settle- 
ment or  settlement  operations. 

13.  (1)  Any  tenant  in  tail  or  for  life,  grere  de  substitution,  seigneur,  guardian,  tutor, 
curator,  committee,  executor,  administrator,  trustee,  master  or  person,  not  only  for 
and  on  behalf  of  himself,  his  heirs,  successors,  and  assigns,  but  also  for  and  on  behalf 
of  those  whom  he  represents,  whether  infants,  issue  unborn,  lunatics,  idiots,  married 
women,  or  other  persons.  M>i/.<d.  p>i  ^i-ssi'd,  or  interested  in  any  land  or  other  property, 
may  contract  and  agree  with  th"  Board  for  the  sale  of  the  whole  or  any  part  thereof, 
and  may  convey  the  same  to  the  Board;  and  may  also  con ti act  and  agree  with  the 
Board  as  to  the  amount  of  compensation  to  be  paid  for  any  such  land  or  propeit)' 
and  give  acquittance  therefor. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE  UNITED   STATES.       113 

(2)  In  any  case  in  which  there  is  no  guardian  or  other  person  to  represent  any  per- 
son under  any  disability,  the  Court  may,  on  the  application  of  the  Board  after  due 
notice  to  the  persons  interested,  appoint  a  guardian  or  person  to  represent  for  the 
purposes  hereof  such  person  so  under  such  disability,  with  authority  to  give  such 
acquittance. 

(3)  The  Court  in  making  any  order  in  this  section  mentioned  shall  give  such  direc- 
tions as  to  the  disposal,  application  or  investment  of  such  compensation  money  as 
it  deems  necessary  to  secure  the  interest  of  all  persons  interested  therein. 

(4)  Any  contract  or  agreement  made  hereunder,  or  any  conveyance  or  other  instru- 
ment made  or  given  in  pursuance  of  such  contract  or  agreement  shall  te  good  and 
valid  to  all  intents  and  purposes  whatsoever. 

(5)  Every  such  contract  or  agreement  shall  be  binding  on  the  owner  and  on  all  who 
may  take  or  claim  through  or  under  him,  for  six  months  from  the  date  of  the  contract 
or  agreement,  although  such  land  has  in  the  meantime  devolved  upon  or  been  con- 
veyed or  assigned  to  a  third  person. 

(6)  No  surrender,  conveyance,  mortgage,  charge,  agreement  or  award  under  this 
Act  shall  require  registration  or  enrolment  to  preserve  the  right  of  the  Board  under  it, 
but  the  same  may  be  registered  in  the  Registry  of  Deeds  for  the  place  where  the  land 
lies,  if  the  Board  deems  it  advisable. 

(7)  This  section  shall  apply  to  all  parts  of  this  Act. 

AGRICULTURAL   TRAINING. 

14.  The  Board  may,  with  the  approval  of  the  Governor  in  Council,  make  provision 
for, — 

(a)  the  placing  of  settlers  with  farmers  for  instruction  in  farming; 

(b)  the  establishment  of  agricultural  training  stations  for  settlers; 

(c)  the  supply  of  instructors  and  inspectors  to  visit  and  assist  settlers  with  informa- 
tion and  instruction  in  farming; 

(d)  the  training  in  home  economics  of  the  wives  and  female  dependents  of  settlers ; 
and, 

{e)  the  payment  of  subsistence  allowances  to  settlers,  for  themselves  and  their 
dependeats,  while  such  settlers  are  in  receipt  of  such  instruction  or  training. 

SOLDIER   GRANTS. 

15.  (1)  The  Minister  may  issue,  free,  to  any  settler  a  soldier  grant  for  not  more  than 
one  quarter  section  (of  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres,  more  or  less)  of  lands  reserved 
pursuant  to  section  six  of  this  Act. 

(2)  Unless  the  Board  shall,  for  special  reasons,  otherwise  recommend,  no  such  free 
grant  shall  be  made  to  any  settler  who, — 

(a)  has,  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  purchased  from  the  Board  any 
land;  or, 

(b)  has,  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  this  or  of  the  former  Act,  secured  from  the 
Board  any  advance  of  money  for  the  clearing  of  encumbrances  on,  or  the  pur- 
chase of,  or  the  improvement  of,  any  land ;  or, 

(c)  is  owner  of  or  has  a  vested,  possessory  interest  in,  agricultural  land  of  such  area 
as,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board,  constitutes  an  average  farm  for  the  district  within 
which  the  land  is  situate,  or  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board,  is  of  the  value 
of  five  thousand  dollars. 

(3)  The  Governor  in  Council  may  provide,  as  respects  such  free  grants,  such  con- 
ditions of  improvement  and  occupation  as  he  deems  necessary  to  secure  the  use  of  the 
land  for  the  purposes  for  which  it  is  granted. 

PART  II. 

SALES  AND  ADVANCES  TO  SETTLERS. 
SALES  OF  LAND. 

16.  The  Board  may  sell,  or  dispose  of,  and,  upon  full  payment  made,  may  convey, 
to  settlers,  any  lands  granted,  conveyed  or  transferred  to  or  acquired  by  it,  or  which 
it  may  have  power  to  sell  or  dispose  of,  but  subject  in  every  case  of  sale  of  lands  ac- 
quired by  purchase,  whether  by  agreement  or  compulsorily,  to  the  following  pro- 
visions:— • 

(a)  Where  the  parcel  to  be  sold  has  been  separately  acquired  the  sale  price  shall  be 
the  cost  of  the  parcel  to  the  Board; 

56664—21 8 


114       DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE   IK   THE   UXITED   STATES. 

(6)  Where  the  parcel  to  be  sold  has  been  acquired  as  portion  of  one  or  more  other 
parcels  the  sale  price  shall  be  such  amount  as  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board,  bears 
the  same  proportion  of  the  cost  of  the  entire  parcel  or  parcels  so  acquired  as  the 
value  of  the  parcel  to  be  sold  bears  to  the  value  of  the  parcel  or  parcels  so  acquired; 
(c)  The  terms  of  payment  shall  be  all  cash  down,  or.  at  the  option  of  the  settler, 
not  less  than  ten  per  centum  cash  down  and  the  balance  payable  in  twenty-five 
or  less  equal,  consecutive,  annual  instalments,  with  interest  at  live  per  centum 
per  annum,  on  the  amortization  plan,  with  full  privilege  of  prepayment.  Pro- 
vided that  the  Board  may,  in  the  case  of  a  special  settler,  dispense  the  settler 
from  the  making  of  the  whole  or  any  part  of  the  cash  down  payment,  in  which 
case  the  full  or  the  remaining  portion  of  the  sale  price  shall  be  paid,  in  manner 
hereinbefore  provided  with  respect  to  a  balance  of  such  price,  by  instalments; 

Xo  sale  shall  be  made  of  a  larger  area  than  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres, 
unless,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board,  owing  to  the  character  of  the  land,  such 
acreage  will  not  be  adequate  to  enable  successful  farming  operations,  nor,  except 
in  the  case  of  a  settler  who  is  within  the  terms  of  the  proviso  in  the  next  preceding 
paragraph  of  this  section,  shall  the  balance  of  sale  price  left  unpaid  to  the  Board 
at  the  time  of  sale  exceed  four  thousand  five  hundred  dollars,  nor  in  the  excepted 

-hall  the  balance  or  amount  left  unpaid  exceed  five  thousand  dollars. 
17.  (1)  The  Board  shall  6alculate  in  each  case  of  sale  the  price  at  which  any  land 
may  be  sold  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act. 

(2)  In  calculating  the  cost  to  the  Board  of  any  land  acquired  by  purchase,  the 
Board  shall  take  into  consideration  not  only  the  cost  of  the  land  but  also  the  cost  of 
improvements,  if  any,  effected  by  the  Board. 

SALES    OP   STOCK    AND    EQUIPMENT. 

IK.  (1)  The  Board  may  sell  to  settlers  any  live  stock  or  equipment  acquired  under 
authority  of  this  Act.  but  subject  in  every  "case  of  sale  to  the  following  provisions:— 

(a)  The  sale  price  shall  be  such  sum  as,' according  to  the  calculations  of  the  Board, 
i-  I  he  cost  to  it  of  the  live  stock  or  equipment  to  be  sold: 

(b)  The  terms  of  payment  shall  be  all  cash  down,  or,  at  the  option  of  the  settler, 
payment  in  four  equal,  consecutive,  annual  instalments,  commencing  not  later 
than  three  years  from  the  date  of  the  sale,  with  interest  at  five  per  centum  per 
annum,  on  the  amortization  plan,  said  interest  to  begin  to  accrue  two  years  from 
tbe  date  of  the  sale;  the  amount  owing  to  the  Board  upon  such  sale  shall  by  force 
of  this  Act  constitute  a  first  charge  on  any  land  purchased  by  the  settler  from 
the  Board  and.  as  well,  on  the  settler's  own  land,  if  any.  and.  cumulatively,  the 
title,  ownership  and  right  of  possession  of  the  live  stock,  and  of  the  increase 
thereof,  and  of  the  equipment  so  sold,  shall,  until  the  sale  price  thereof  is  paid, 
remain  in  the  Board;  the  settler  to  have  full  privilege  of  prepayment: 

(c)  The  balance  of  sale  price  left  unpaid  to  the  Board  at  the  time  of  sale  shall  not 
exceed  two  thousand  dollars. 

(2)  In  addition  to  any  assistance  which  a  settler,  as  defined  in  the  former  Act, 
holding  any  entry  on  Dominion  land?,  may  have  secured  or  may  secure  by  virtue 
of  the  provisions  of  that  Act,  the  Board  may  sell  to  such  settler  live  stock  and  equip- 
ment on  the  terms  of  payment  set  out  in  this  section,  save  that  the  balance  of  sale 
price  left  unpaid  to  the  Board  shall  not  exceed  one  thousand  dollars,  all  other  pro- 
visions of  this  Act  relating  to  sales  of  live  stock  and  equipment  made  to  settlers  being 
deemed  to  refer  and  apply  mutatis  mn/fnf/!^  to  any  such  sale  of  live  stock  and  equip- 
ment, whether  such  sale  is  or  was  made  under  authority  of  this  subsection  or  by  virtue 
of  the  provisions  of  any  Order  of  the  Governor  in  Council  before  the  passing  of  this 
Act.  but  so  that  the  total  made  by  («)  the  advances  of  the  Board  to  the  settler  in  any 
connection  under  authority  of  this  Act  and,  (b)  the  amounts,  exclusive  of  interest, 
due  by  him  to  the  Board  as  the  result  of  any  sale  made  under  authority  of  this  sub- 
section, shall  not  exceed  three  thousand  dollars. 

ADVANCES   FOR    IMPROVEMENTS. 

19.  (1)  The  Board  may  from  time  to  time  advance  to  any  settler  to  provide,  or  for 
application  to,  permanent  improvements  on  the  land  of  the  settler  or  on  the  land  sold 
to  him  by  the  Board,  amounts  in  money  or  its  equivalent  not  exceeding  in  the  aggre- 
gate one  thousand  dollar-,  inclusive  of  the  cast  price  to  the  Board  of  building  or  other 
materials  supplied  by  it. 

(2)  Such  advances  shall  by  force  of  this  Act  constitute  a  first  charge  on  the  land 
of  the  settler  or  on  the  land  sold  to  him  by  the.  Board  and  shall  be  repayable  in  twenty- 
five  or  less  equal,  consecutive,  annual  instalments,  with  interest  at  five  per  centum 
per  annum,  on  the  amortization  plan,  with  full  privilege  of  repayment. 

(3)  Every  such  advance  shall  be  expended  under  the  supervision  of  the  Board.  t 


DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE  UNITED   STATES.        115 

TERMS    OF    DISPOSITION    OF    PROPERTY. 

20.  Subject  to  the  provisions  of  section  fifteen  of  this  Act  as  to  soldier  grants  of 
Dominion  lands,  the  Board  shall  deal  with  and  dispose  of  all  Dominion  lands,  Indian 
lands  or  school  lands  granted  or  otherwise  conveyed  or  transferred  to  it  pursuant  to 
sections  six,  ten  and  eleven  of  this  A  ct  as  nearly  as  may  be  as  if  such  lands  were  pri  vate 
lands  acquired  by  it  by  way  of  purchase,  but  the  sale  price  of  such  lands  shall  be  such 
as  i<  approved  by  the  Governor  in  Council. 

21.  (1)  No  land  which  ha«  been  acquired  or  reacquired  by  the  Board,  whether  by 
purchase,  or  by  retaking  because  of  default  or  otherwise,  shall  be  sold  or  resold  by  the 
board  at  a  price  less  than  the  cost  to  it  thereof,  calculated  as  in  section  seventeen  of 
this  Act  provided,  unless  with  the  approval  of  the  Governor  in  Council. 

(2)  If  tke  Board  determines  that  the  whole  or  any  part  of  any  land  or  other  property 
purchased  by  it  cannot  or  ought  not  to  be  sold  subject,  whether  as  to  sale  price  or 
otherwise,  to  the  provisions  of  sections  sixteen  to  eighteen  inclusive  of  this  Act.  it 
shall  report  to  the  Minister  the  circumstances,  with  a  statement  of  the  cost  to  it  of 
such  property  or  of  such  part  thereof  and  shall  recommend  another  sale  price,  or  other 
terms  of  sale,  as  the  case  may  be,  \vhereafter  any  sale  of  such  property  or  of  such  part 
thereof  shall  be  made  for  such  sale  price,  or  upon  such  other  terms,  as  the  Governor 
in  (  'ouncil  may  direct. 

RESALE    UPON    DEFAULT. 

22.  (1)  All  sales  of  property  made  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  this  Act  and  whereon 
any  balance  of  the  sale  price  shall  remain  payable  by  instalments  or  otherwise,  shall 
be  evidenced  by  agreement  of  sale,  which  shall  fully  set  forth  the  terms  of  sale. 

(2)  If  any  instalment  mentioned  in  any  such  agreement  of  sale  is  not  punctually 
made  or  if  the  settler  makes  any  other  default  in  performance  of  the  terms  of  such 
agreement,  the  Board  may  without  any  formal  re-entry  or  retaking  and  without 
resort  to  proceedings  in  equity  or  at  law,  rescind  such  agreement  and  resell  or  other- 
wise deal  with  the  property  as  authorized  by  this  Act. 

(o  )  The  effect  of  such  rescission  shall  be  to  vest  such  property  in  the  Board  abso- 
lutely free  and  discharged  of  all  rights  and  claims  of  the  settler,  and  of  all  persons 
claiming  or  entitled  to  claim  through  or  under  him,  for  any  estate  in,  or  lien,  charge 
or  encumbrance  upon  or  against  such  property. 

(4)  If  and  when  such  property  is  resold  by  the  Board,  any  surplus  remains  in  its 
hands  beyond  the  amount  owing  to  it  as  balance  of  the  sale  price  and  interest  at  five 
per  centum  per  anntim  and  expenses  of  taking  over  and  reselling  the  property,  the 
Board  shall  pay  such  surplus  to  the  settler;  but  if,  instead,  a  deficiency  arises,  that 
deficiency  shall  be  paid  by  the  settler  to  the  Board,  which  shall  have  a  right  of  action 
against  him  therefor. 

<o)  Before  exercising  as  against  land  the  rights  by  this  section  given  the  Board 
shall  give  to  the  settler  notice  of  its  intention  so  to  do,  which  notice'shall  be  deemed 
duly  given  if  mailed  in  any  post  office  by  registered  letter  addressed  to  the  settler 
at  his  last  known  address  known  to  the  Board  thirty  clear  days  before  the  Board 
acts  here  under. 

23.  In  the  event  of  the  rescission  of  any  contract  or  agreement  by  the  Board  it 
may.  subject  to  the  provisions  of  section  twenty-one,  in  order  to  recoup  itself  for 
its  expenditures  in  connection  with  the  acquirement  of  the  property  with  reference 
to  which  such  agreement  of  sale  was  made,  and  other  advances,  if  any,  made  to  the 
settler  under  the  provisions  of  this  Act  or  of  the  former  Act  or  to  regain  the  value  of 
such  property,  sell,  lease,  exchange,  or  otherwise  dispose  of  such  property  to  a  settler 
or,  with  the  approval  of  the  Minister,  to  any  other  person. 


21.  Any  land  purchased  or  held  for  disposition  by  the  Board  may.  pending  such 
disposition,  be  leased  by  the  Board  to  a  settler  or  otherwise  upon  terms  satisfactory 
to  the  Minister. 

ADVANCES    FOR   THE    DISCHARGE    OF    ENCUMBRANCES. 

25.  (1)  The  Board  may  from  time  to  time  advance  to  a  settler,  to  enable  the  dis- 
charge of  encumbrances  on  agricultural  land  which  is  owned  and  used  by  him  as 
such,  amounts  in  money  not  exceeding  in  the  aggregate  three  thousand  five'  hundred 
dollars  and  not  exceeding  fifty  per  centum  of  the  value  of  such  land,  but  so  that  the 
total  made  by  (a)  the  advances  of  the  Board  to  the  settler  under  this  section  and,  (b) 
the  amounts,  exclusive  of  interest,  due  bv  him  to  the  Board  in  any  connection  under 
authority  of  this  Act.  shall  not  exceed  five  thousand  dollars. 


116       DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   1ST   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

(2)  Such  advances  shall,  by  force  of  this  Act.  constitute  a  first  charge  on  the  land 
of  the  settler  with  respect  to  which  the  advance  is  made,  and  repayment  thereof 
ehall  be  secured  by  a  first  mortgage  upon  such  land  and  shall  be  made  in  twenty- 
five  or  less  equal,  consecutive,  annual  instalments  with  interest  at  five  per  centum 
per  annum,  on  the  amortization  plan,  with  full  privilege  of  prepayment.     In  the  case 
of  advances  made  to  a  settler  holding  unpatented  Dominion  lands  such  advances 
shall,  further,  notwithstanding  anything  in   The  Dominion  Lands  Act  or  any  other 
matter  or  circumstance,  constitute"  a  first  charge  against  such  lands,  and  no"  patent 
shall  be  issued  to  the  settler  therefor  until  such  advances,  with  accrued  interest. 
have  been  fully  repaid. 

(3)  No  advance  such  as  by  subsection  one  of  this  section  authorized  shall  be  made 
unless  the  Board  is  satisfied, — 

(a1)  that  the  value  of  the  security,  ascertained  as  in  section  twelve  of  thi 
directed  with  respect  to  lands  to  be  acquired  by  the  Board,  is  sufficient  to  justify 
the  making  of  the  advance:  and. 

(b)  that,  the  applicant  has  the  ability  to  make  from  the  land  a  fair  living  for  him- 
self and  his  dependents,  if  any.  after  paying  interest  and  amor  fixation  charges 
and  other  necessary  payments"  with  respect  to  such  advances  and  to  the  land 
and  the  cultivation  thereof. 

(4)  Every  silch  advance  shall  be  expended  under  the  supervision  of  the  Board. 

CHARGES    OX    DOMINION"    LANDS. 

26.  When  a  settler  obtains  Dominion  lands,  whether  by  soldier  grant  or  otherwise, 
and  whether  before  or  after  hiving  secured  from  the  Board  any  advance  pursuant 
to  this  Act.  while  there  is  owing  to  him  by  the  Board  any  sum  or  sums  of  money  as 
the  result  of  any  sale  made  t6  him  by  the  Board,  or  otherwise  by  reason  of  the  exercise 
by  the  Board  of  any  of  its  powers  under  this  Act.  such  sum  so  owing  shall  con?titute 
a  first  charge  on  the  lands  so  obtained  and  no  patent  shall  be  issued  to  such  settler  there- 
for until  such  sum  or  sums,  with  accrued  interest,  have  been  fully  paid  or  repaid. 

27.  Notwithstanding  anything  in  The  Dominion  Lands  Act  or  in  any  other  Act,  in 
the  event  of  a  settler  who  is  holding  any  Dominion  land  on  which  a  charge  has  been 
imposed,  constituted  or  created  by  or  under  this  or  the  former  Act  (hereinafter  referred 
to  as  ''charged  land")  being  in  default  with  respect  to  the  terms  or  conditions  of 
any  agreement  of  sale,  mortgage  or  other  document  executed  or  made  with  or  to  the 
Board,  the  Minister,  upon  request  made  by  the  Board,  may  declare  the  right,  title 
and  interest  of  the  settler  to  or  in  such  charged  land  to  be  forfeited,  whereupon  (and 
also  in  the  event  of  the  right,  title  or  interest  of  the  settler  to  or  in  such  charged  land 
becoming  forfeited  for  default  in  performance  of  settlement  conditions  or  for  any 
other  reason  apart  from  the  provisions  of  this  section)  the  Minister  may  declare  the 
said  right,  title  or  interest  of  such  settler,  and  also  the  right,  title  or  interest  of  His 
Majesty  to  or  in  such  charged  land,  to  be  vested  in  the  Board,  and  it  may  thereafter, 
subject  to  the  provisions  of  section  twenty-one  of  this  Act,  in  order  to  recoup  itself 
for  the  amount  owing  by  such  settler  and  charged  upon  such  land,  sell,  lease,  ex- 
change or  otherwise  dispose  of  such  land  to  a  settler,  or,  with  the  approval  of  the 
Minister,  to  any  other  person;  but  if  any  surplus  is  realized  beyond  the  amount 
required  to  recoup  the  Board  as  aforesaid,  such  surplus  shall  be  paid  by  the  Board  to 
the  Department  of  the  Interior  for  the  Consolidated  Revenue  Fund. 

LIMITATIONS  UPON   SALES  AND  ADVANCES. 

28.  Notwithstanding  anything  in  this  Act,  the  Board  shall  not,  unless  the  Minister 
upon  the  recommendation  of  the  Board  shall  approve,  sell  any  lands  to  any  settler 
who, — 

(a)  has  obtained  a  soldier  grant  under  this  or  the  former  Act;  or. 

(6)  has  secured  from  the  Board,  under  this  or  the  former  Act,  any  advance  of  money 

for  the  clearing  of  encumbrances  on  land  owned  by  the  settler;  or, 
(c)  is  owner  of,  or  has  a  vested,  possessory  interest  in/agricultural.  land  of  such  area 

as,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board,  constitutes  an  average  farm  for  the  district  within 

which  the  land  is  situate,  or  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board,  is  of  the  value 

of  five  thousand  dollars. 

SALES   FOR   SPECIAL   PURPOSES. 

29.  Notwithstanding  anything  in  this  Act,  the  Board,  with  the  consent  of  the 
Governor  in  Council,  may  sell  any  land  which  is  at  its  disposal  for  sale,  not  exceeding 
five  acres  in  extent,  in  the  cases  and  subject  to  the  conditions  following,  that  is  to 
say  — 

(«)  As  a  site  for  a  dairy  factory,  cheese  factory,  fruit  preserving  factory  or  creamery. 
or  for  any  educational,  religious,  charitable,  or  public  purpose,  or"  for  any  other 


DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES. 

purpose  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board,  renders  such  a  sale  in  the  public 

interest: 

if"  To  any  provincial  or  municipal  authority  for  any  purpose; 
(<•)  The  price  shall  in  each  case  be  fixed  by" the  Governor  in  Council  and  shall  be 

not  less  than  the  cost  of  the  land  as  it  would  be  estimated  by  the  Board  on  a  sale 

to  a  settler  of  lands  acquired  by  purchase  under  this  Act. 

GENERAL    PROVISION'S. 

30.  (1)  All  deeds  of  land,  all  mortgages  and  charges  upon  land  or  goods  and  all 
contracts  and  agreements  whatever,  including  bills  of  exchange  and  promissory  notes, 
made  or  entered  into  by  any  settler  to  or  with,  or  for  the  benefit  or  security  of.  the 
Board,  purporting  to  act  with  respect  thereto  or  to  accept  any  thereof  in  execution  of 
any  of  its  powers  under  this  Act  or  under  the  former  Act.  shall  be  valid  and  enforceable 
notwithstanding  that  such  settler  is  not  of  the  full  age  of  twenty-one  years,  or  is  an 
Indian  or  is  under  any  civil  disability. 

(2)  This  section  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  operative  as  from  the  passing  of 
Tl,e  Soldi,  r  3eUlem<  nt  Art.  1917. 

31 .  Every  settler  holding  or  occupying  land  sold  by  the  Board  shall,  until  the  Board 
grants  or  conveys  the  land  to  him.  be  deemed  a  tenant  at  will. 

32.  All  agreements  of  sale  or  otherwise,  all  instruments  evidencing  liens  or  charges, 
and  all  other  documents  authorized  or  required  by  this  Act.  shall  be  made  in  such 
form  and  according  to  such  forms  and  shall  contain  such  provisions  as  by  way  of 
regulation  made  the  Board  shall  provide  and  every  such  document  shall  have  effect 
as  if  the  form  thereof  were  statutory,  and  were  provided  by  and  as  part  of  this  Act. 

33.  Notwithstanding  any  law.   whether  statute  or  otherwise,  in  force  any  any 
province. — 

(a)  which  authorizes  or  requires  the  registration,  recording  or  filing  of  deeds,  mort- 
gages, certificates  of  judgments,  attachments,  bills  of  sale  or  other  documents 
which  al'fect  title  to.  or  evidence  the  existence  of  liens  or  charges  upon,  property , 
real,  personal  or  other:  or. 
(6)  which  authorizes  the  levy  upon,  or  sale  under  attachment,  execution  or  othei 

process,  or  the  expropriation  or  seizure  of,  property,  real,  personal  or  other; 
unless  the  Board  shall  otherwise  consent  in  writing  the  lands  of,  or  sold  by  the  Board 
t<>.  a  settler,  and  the  live  stock  and  equipment  of,  or  sold  by  the  Board  to,  a  settler, 
and  the  increase  of  any  such  live  stock,  and  the  Board 's  and  the  settler 's  respective 
intere-ts  in  such  lands,  live  stock  and  equipment,  shall,  for  so  long  as  any  part  of  the 
sale  price,  or  the  amount  of  any  advance  made  with  respect  to  any  such  property,  or 
any  interest,  or  any  amount  charged  upon  such  property  or  any  thereof  in  favour  of 
the  Board,  remains  unpaid  to  the  Board,  be  exempt  from  and  not  within  the  opera- 
tion <>f  such  laws. 

34.  (1)  Notwithstanding  any  law,  whether  statute  or  otherwise,  in  force  in  any 
province. — 

( a  i  while  any  sum  shall  remain  unpaid  upon  the  aggregate  advances  or  payments 
made  from  time  to  time  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  this  Act  by  the  Board  to 
or  on  behalf  of  a  settler,  and  secured  by  or  charged  whether  under  this  Act  or 
otherwise,  upon  properties  real,  personal  or  other,  of  the  settler,  or  upon  the 
settler's  interest  in  any  of  such  properties,  all  of  the  properties  so  charged  shall 
continue  to  be  security  for  repayment  of  such  sum  or  sums  as  shall  at  any  time 
remain  unpaid  upon  any  of  such  advances  or  payments  and,  unless  with  the 
consent  in  writing  of  the  Board,  the  interest  of  the  settler  in  any  of  such  proper- 
ties shall  not  be  capable  of  being  voluntarily  or  involuntarily  alienated,  or  sub- 
sequently charged  or  encumbered  nor  be  subject  to  the  operation  of  any  law  or 
agreement  whatever  to  the  prejudice  of  the  claims  or  charges  of  the  Board; 

(6)  no  deed,  mortgage  or  other  instrument  executed  by  or  for  a  settler,  and  no 
judgment  recovered  or  attachment,  execution  or  other  process  issued -against 
him  shall,  a,s  aeainst  the  Board,  bind  or  affect  the  lands  or  the  live  stock  arid 
equipment,  sold  by  the  Board  to  auch  settler  or  his  land  upon  the  security  of 
which  the  Board  has  made  any  advance  of  money,  or  the  increase  of  any  of 
such  live  stock  sold  as  aforesaid,  for  so  long  as  the  sale  price  of  said  lands,  live 
stock  or  equipment,  or  said  advance,  or  any  part  of  said  price  or  advance,  or  any 
interest  thereon,  remains  unpaid  to  the  Board: 

(c)  the  wife  of  any  settler  shall  not.  for  so  long  as  the  sale  price,  or  any  part  thereof 
or  any  interest  "thereon,  or  any  charge  in  favour  of  the  Board,  remains  unpaid 
upon 'any  lands  which  were  sold  by  the  Board  to  a  settler,  or  upon  the  security 
of  which  the  Board  has  made  any  advance  of  money,  have  in  priority  or  in  prej- 
udice of  any  claim  or  charge  of  the  Board  against  or  upon  such  lands  any  estate  of 
dower  therein  nor,  during  the  same  period,  shall  the  husband  of  any  settler  have  in 


118       DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX    THE   UXITED   STATES. 

priority  or  prejudice  as  aforesaid,  any  estate  of  curtesy  in  such  lands,  nor  shall 
the  Mechanics'  Lien  laws  or  other  lien  laws  or  the  dower  or  homestead  la«"s  of 
any  province  extend  or  apply  in  priority  or  prejudice  as  aforesaid  to  said  lands; 

(d)  no  sale.  tuft,  delivery,  barter,  exchange,  pledge,  charge,  lien  or  other  transac- 
tion by  or  for  the  settler  to  or  with  any  person,  corporation  or  body  other  than 
the  Board,  and  purporting  to  affect  or  bind  any  of  such  lands,  live  stock  or  equip- 
ment or  any  part  thereof,  sold  by  the  Board  to  a  settler,  or  the  increase  of  any 
live  stock  so  sold,  shall,  while  the  sale  price  of  such  lands,  live  stock  and  equip- 
ment, or  of  any  part  thereof,  or  any  interest  on  such  price  thereof,  remains  un- 
paid, have,  as  against  the  Board,  unless  with  the  consent  of  the  Board,  any  effect 
whatever; 

(e)  if  the  produce  or  crop  of  any  lands  which  were  sold  by  the  Board  to  a  settler 
or  of  any  lands  upon  the  security  of  which  the  Board  has  made  any  advance  of 
money  is  seized  or  taken  in  execution  or  under  any  other  process,  "whether  the 
settler  shall  or  shall  not  have  fully  paid  for  said  lands,  and  whether  said  prod- 
uce or  crop  is  seized  or  taken  standing,  or  cut.  or  in  barn,  or  otherwise,  such  prod- 
uce or  crop  shall  stand  charged  with  a  lien  in  favour  of  the  Board  for  paymen  t 
of  all  instalments  due  or  overdue  by  the  settler  to  the  Board  at  the  time  of  seizure 
or  taking,  in  respect  of  the  settler's  land,  live  stock,  equipment  and  permanent 
improvements,  and,  as  well,  all  such  instalments  in  respect  as  aforesaid  as  will 
mature  within  twelve  calendar  months  thereafter. 

(2)  All  lawful  transactions  by  or  with  and  all  lawful  proceedings  against  the  settler, 
and  all  provincial  law?  affecting  him  or  his  property  or  his  property  interests,  shall. 
as  respects  any  property,  real,  personal  or  other,  sold  to  him  by  the  Board,  or  charged 
with  any  claims  of  the  Board,  have  effect  except  as  by  this  Act  provided. 

(3)  Unless  the  Board  shall  otherwise  consent  all  liens  and  charges  of  the  Board 
shall,  while  and  for  so  long  as  they  or  any  part  thereof  shall  remain  unpaid  to  the 
Board,  rank  upon  the  property  of  the  settler,  or  against  his  interest  in  any  property 
subject  to  lien  or  charged,  in  priority  to  all  other  liens  and  charges,  and  the  liea* 
and  charges  of  the  Board  shall  rank  pari  passu. 

(4)  The  Board  may  require  of  any  settler  the  execution  of  a  mortgage,  in  such  form 
as  its  regulations  may  prescribe,  denning  and  securing  any  charge  which  is  by  this  or 
by  the  former  Act  imposed  or  declared  to  exist  or  is  agreed  upon  by  the  Board  and  the 
se'ttler. 

PART   III. 

COMPULSORY  PURCHASE  OF  LANDS. 

SETTLEMEXT   AREAS. 

35.  (1)  For  the  purpose  of  enabling  compulsory  purchase  of  agricultural  lands  in 
execution  of  the  purposes  of  this  Act,  the  Board  may  establish  and  define  the  limits  of 
settlement  areas. 

(2)  Settlement  areas  shall  be  established  only  in  districts  wherein  by  reason  of 
lands  remaining  undeveloped  agricultural  production  is  being  retarded. 

(3)  The  Board  shall  be  sole  judge  as  to  whether  or  not  in  any  district,  by  reason  of 
lands  remaining  undeveloped,  agricultural  production  is  being  retarded,  and  the  fact 
of  the  establishment  of  a  settlement  area  in  manner  by  this.  Part  of  this  Act  provided 
shall  be  conclusive  proof  in  any  court  or  otherwise  that  any  lands  within  such  area 
which  the  Board,  pursuant  to  the  following  provisions  of  this  Part,  may  proceed  to 
compulsorily  purchase   are   compulsorily   purchaseable  hereunder,  and   that   such 
settlement  area  answers  the  requirements  of  the  next  preceding  subsection. 

36.  (1)  A  settlement  area  shall  be  deemed  to  be  established  when  the  Board  has 
gazetted  a  notice  of  such  establishment  four  times  with  intervals  of  not  less  than  live 
days  between  each  gazetting. 

(2)  S*uch  notice  shall  define  the  limits  of  the  settlement  area  so  established.     It 
shall  be  sufficient  if  in  form  as  nearly  as  may  be  to  Form  A  in  the  Schedule  to  this  Act . 

(3)  The  Board  shall,  in  addition  to  such  gazetting,  publish  like  notice  to  that 
gazetted  four  times,  with  intervals  of  not  less  than  five  days  between  each  publication, 
in  one  newspaper  having  a  circulation  throughout  the  district  wherein  such  settlement 
area  is  wholly  or  partly  contained  and  mail  two  copier  of  the  Gazette  in  which  such 
notice  first  appears  to  the  Registrar  of  Deeds  in  said  district. 

(4)  Such  Registrar  shall  preserve  such  Gaze'te  on  file  in  his  office. 

(5)  The  omission  on  the  part  of  the  Board  to  comply  with  subsection  three  of  this 
section,  or  the  omission  of  the  Registrar  to  comply  with  subsection  four  to  this  section, 
shall  not  invalidate  nor  render  insufficient  any  proceedings  on  the  part  of  the  Board 
for  compulsory  purchase. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTUBE  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES.       119 

37.  The  Board  may.  from  time  to  time,  curtail,  extend  or  in  any  other  way  alter  the 
limits  of,  or  entirely  disestablish  a  settlement  area,  which  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been 
done  when  it  has  gazetted  notice  of  the  alteration  or  disestablishment  in  like  manner 
to  the  gazetting  of  notice  of  the  original  establishment  of  the  area,  save  that  in  the  case 
of  disestablishment  only  one  gazetting  shall  be  made.     The  notice  shall  be  sufficient 
if  in  form  as  nearly  as  may  be  to  Form  B  in  the  Schedule  to  this  Act.     The  Board 
shall  publish  and  mail  and  the  Registrar  of  Deeds  shall  preserve  on  file  in  manner 
like  to  that  in  section  thirty-six  provided  with  respect  to  the  original  establishment  of 
the  settlement  area  (save  that  in  the  case  of  disestablishment  onlv  one  publication  shall 
be  made),  but  non-compliance  shall  have  like  absence  of  effect. 

38.  Gazetting  as  in  section  thirty-six  and  thirty-seven  of  this  Act  provided  shall 
constitute  notice  to  every  person  proposing  to  deal  with  or  acquire  any  estate  or  interest 
in  or  any  charge  upon  anv  land  within  a  settlement  area  that  the  land  is  subject  to  the 
provisions  of  this  Act,  and  shall  put  such  person  upon  inquiry  as  to  the  proceedings 
which  may  have  been  taken  by  the  Board,  and  all  subsequent  registrations  in  respect 
to  anv  parcel  of  land  which  is  in  whole  or  in  part  included  within  such  settlement 
area  shall  be  subject  to  the  rights,  options,  and  privileges  of  the  Board,  and  the  person 
claiming  under  anv  such  registration  shall  take  the  land  subject  to  all  charges  and  lia- 
bilities which  have  been  imposed  and  to  which  it  may  be  liable  to  be  subjected  under 
this  Act. 

DUTIES    OF   OWNERS    OF   LANDS   WITHIN    A    SETTLEMENT   AREA. 

39.  (1)  Within  thirty  days  after  the  last  gazetting  on  the  establishment  of  a  settle- 
ment area,  each  owner  of  a  block,  the  whole  or  anv  part  whereof  is  situate  within  the 
settlement  area,  shall  file  with  the  District  Superintendent  of  the  Board  having  juris- 
diction over  the  district  within  which  such  settlement  area  is  situate  a  return  in  Form 
C  in  the  Schedule  to  this  Act  naming  the  prices  at  which  he  is  willing  to  sell  the  block 
and  each  parcel  thereof  to  the  Board.     Tie  shall  give  such  other  information  with  re- 
spect to  such  block  as  the  Board  mav  from  time  to  time  prescribe  or  require. 

(2)  At  anv  time  after  the  expiration  of  such  thirty  days  period  the  Board  may,  by 
notice  to  the  owner  of  any  land  within  the  settlement  area  which  is  deemed  bv  the 
Board  subject  to  compulsory  purchase  under  this  Act,  mailed  to  his  last  known  address, 
require  such  owner  to  convey  to  the  Board  the  land  with  respect  to  which  notice  has 
been  so  mailed  and  thereby  advise  him  of  the  amount  of  compensation  that  the  Board 
is  willing  to  pay  for  such  land. 

40.  Every  person  who  has  any  estate  or  interest  in  any  land  proposed  to  be  com- 
pulsorily  purchased  for  any  of  the  purposes  of  this  Act.  or  who  represents  or  is  the 
husband  of  any  such  person,  shall,  upon  demand  made  therefor  by  or  on  behalf  of 
the  Board,  furnish  to  the  Board  a  true  statement  showing  the  particulars  of  such 
estate  and  interest  and  of  every  charge,  lien  and  encumbrance  to  which  the  same 
is  subject,  and  of  the  claim  made  by  such  person  in  respect  of  such  estate  and  in- 
terest. 

PROCEDURE    FOR   COMPULSORY  PURCHASE. 

41.  (1)  If  the  Board  decides  to  acquire  any  land  within  a  settlement  area  and, — 
(a)  the  owner  refuses  to  sell;  or. 

(6)  it  appears  to  the  Board  that  no  agreement  for  sale  can  be  arranged;  or, 

(c)  no  proper  deed  or  conveyance  is  made  and  executed  by  the  person  having  the 
power  to  make  such  deed  or  conveyance;  or. 

(d)  a  person  interested  in  such  land  is  incapable  of  making  or  executing  a  deed  or 
conveyance;  or, 

(e)  for  any  other  reason  the  Board  deems  it  necessary  or  advisable; 

the  Board  may  purchase  such  land  compulsorily.  in  manner  hereinafter  provided. 

(2)  The  Board  shall  gazette  a  notice  in  Form  D.  describing  the  land  by  metes  and 
bounds  or  otherwise,  and  stating  that  it  has  been  compulsorily  purchased  by  the  Board 
and  the  amount  of  compensation  money  that  the  Board  is  willing  to  pay.  whereupon 
the  land  as  described  shall  by  such  gazetting  and  by  force  of  this  Aft  become  and 
remain  vested  in  the  Board  as  for  an  estate  of  fee  simple  in  possession  or.  in  trie  province 
of  Quebec,  in  the  Board    as  absolute  owner,  and  in  any  event  freed  and  discharged 
from  all  other  estates  and  from  all  encumbrances,  liens,  claims  and  interests  what- 
ever, and  as  effectually  as  if  it  had  been  conveyed  by  deed  or  conveyance  of  all  per- 
sons entitled  to  any  interest  therein,  but  compensation,  ascertained  as  in  this  Part 
provided,  shall  be  paid  therefor.    The  amount  of  compensation  money  mentioned  in 
such  notice  gazetted  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  by  such  gazetting  and  by  force 
of  this  Act.  tendered  to  the  persons  entitled  to  any  interest  in  said  land,  collectively. 

(3)  The  gazetting  of  the  notice  in  Form  D  shall  for  all  purposes  be  conclusive  proof 
that  all  necessary  steps  and  conditions  precedent  thereto  have  been  duly  taken  and 
complied  with. 


120       DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UXITED   STATES. 

(4)  In  case  of  any  omission,  misstatement  or  erroneous  description  in  such  gazetting 
it  shall,  at  the  option  of  the  Board,  be  deemed  not  to  have  been  made,  and  a  new 
and  correct  gazetting  which  shall  indicate  the  gazetting  of  which  it  is  the  correction, 
shall  be  made  in  its  stead,  whereupon  such  new  and  correct  gazetting  ehall  be  deemed 
the  only  gazetting  made  and  of  itself  proof  for  all  purposes  of  the  exercise  by  the 
Board  of  the  option  in  this  subsection  mentioned. 

(5)  If  within  sixty  days  from  the  date  of  such  gazetting  the  owner  being  in  the 
province  or  in  any  place  in  North  America,  or  within  one  hundred  days  the  owner 
being  elsewhere,  no  proper  deed  or  conveyance  to  the  Board  is  made  and  executed  by 
the  person  or  persons  having  power  to  make  and  execute  such  deed  or  conveyance,  or 
if  the  owner  or  any  person  interested  in  the  land,  by  notice  served  on  the  Board  before 
the  expiration  of  the  stated  period,  claims  that  the  compensation  tendered  by  such 
gazetting  is  inadequate,  the  Board  may  cause  to  be  exhibited  in  the  Exchequer 
Court  an  information  in  which  shall  be  set  forth, — 

(a)  the  date  at  which  and  the  manner  in  which  such  land  was  acquired  or  taken; 

(6)  the  persons,  who,  at  such  date,  had  any  estate  or  interest  in  such  land  and  the 
particulars  of  such  estate  or  interest  and'  of  any  charge,  lien,  or  encumbrance  to 
which  the  land  was  subject,  so  far  as  the  same  can  be  ascertained: 

(c)  the  sums  of  money  which  the  Board  is  ready  to  pay  to  such  persons  respectively, 
in  respect  of  any  such  estate,  interest,  charge,  lien  or  encumbrance;  and, 

(d)  any  other  facts  material  to  the  consideration  and  determination  of  the  questions 
involved  in  such  proceedings. 

(6)  Such  information  shall  be  deemed  and  taken  to  be  the  institution  of  a  suit 
against  the  persons  named  therein,  and  shall  conclude  with  a  claim  for  such  a  judg- 
ment or  declaration  as,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Board,  the  facts  warrant. 

(7)  The  information  shall  be  served  in  like  manner  as  other  informations  and  all 
proceedings  in  respect  thereof  or  subsequent  thereto  shall  be  regulated  by  and  shall 
conform  as  nearly  as  may  be  to  the  procedure  in  other  cases  instituted  by  information 
in  the  Court. 

(8)  Any  person  who  is  mentioned  in  any  such  information,  or  who  afterwards  is 
made  or  becomes  a  party  thereto,  may,  by  his  answer,  exception  or  defence,  raise 
any  question  of  fact  or  law  incident  to  the  determination  of  his  right  to  such  com- 
pensation money  or  any  part  thereof,  or  in  respect  of  the  sufficiency  of  such  compen- 
sation money. 

(9)  Such  proceedings  shall,  so  far  as  the  parties  thereto  are  concerned,  bar  all 
claims  to  the  compensation  money  or  any  part  thereof,  including  any  claim  of  dower, 
or  of  dower  not  yet  open,  as  welfas  in  respect  of  all  mortgages/hypothecs  or  encum- 
brances upon  the  land  or  property;  and  the  Court  shall  make  such  order  for  the  dis- 
tribution, payment  or  investment  of  the  compensation  money  and  for  the  securing 
of  the  rights  of  all  persons  interested,  as  to  right  and  justice,  and,  according  to  the 
provisions  of  this  Act  and  to  law  appertain. 

42.  If  the  Board  decides  to  acquire  by  compulsory  purchase  any  block  which  is 
not  within  an  existing  settlement  area,  it  may  establish  the  block  as  a  settlement 
area,  or  it  may  by  notice  gazetted  in  the  manner  provided  in  section  forty-one  of  this 
Act,  declare  such  block  to  be  within  an  existing  settlement  area,  of  which  area  the 
notice  shall  define  altered  bounds  to  include  the  block  so  decided  to  be  purchased, 
whereupon  compulsory  purchase  proceedings  may  be  conducted  in  even'  respect 
as  if  the  block  had  been  originally  within  an  established  settlement  area. 

43.  Every  registrar  of  deeds  shall,  upon  receipt  of  any  copy  of  the  Canada  Gazelle 
containing  any  notice  in  Form  D  gazetted  under  this  Act  affecting  lands  within  his 
registration  district,  register,  record  or  enter  in  the  book  or  books,  including  index  books, 
in  which,  according  to  the  law  of  his  province  with  reference  to  the  registration  or  re- 
cording of  grants,  conveyances  or  transfers  of  land,  grants,  deeds  or  other  documents 
of  conveyance  or  copies  thereof  or  notations  or  references  thereto  ought  by  him  to  be 
registered,  recorded  or  entered,  either  the  whole  notice  in  Form  D  so  "gazetted  or 
sufficient  notations  or  references  thereto  or  therefrom  as  will  show  that  the  land  de- 
scribed or  the  interest  stated  in  such  notice  is  or  are  owned  by  the  Board  absolutely 
by  right  acquired  under  this  Act,  and  upon  any  resale  of  such  land  or  of  part  thereof 
by  the  Board  shall,  when  required,  register,  record  or  enter  in  such  books  the  pur- 
chaser thereof  or  of  part  thereof  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  any  grant  or  convey- 
ance from  the  Board  presented  for  registration,  recording  or  entry. 

44.  The  compensation  money  agreed  upon  or  adjudged  for  any  land  compulsorily 
purchased  for  any  of  the  purposes  of  this  Act  shall  stand  in  the  stead  of  such  land 
or  property;  and'any  claim  to  or  encumbrance  upon  such  land  or  property  shall,   as 
respects  the  Board,  be  converted  into  a  claim  to  such  compensation  money  or  to  a 
proportionate  amount  thereof  as  may  be  allowed  and  shall  be  void  as  respects  any 
land  so  compulsorily  purchased. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES.       121 

COSTS. 

45.  The  costs  of  and  incidental  to  any  compulsory  purchase  proceedings  under 
this  Act  shall  be  in  the  discretion  of  the  Court,  which  may  direct  that  the  whole 
or  any  part  of  such  costs  may  be  paid  by  the  Board  or  by  any  party  to  such  proceedings. 

PAYMENT   OF   COMPENSATION   OR    COSTS. 

4fi.  The  Board  may  pay  to  any  person  any  sum  to  which,  under  the  judgment 
of  the  Court,  in  virtue  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  he  is  entitled  as  compensation 
money  or  costs. 

INTEREST. 

47.  (1)  Interest  at  the  rate  of  five  per  centum  per  annum  may  be  allowed  on  surh 
compensation  money  from  the  time  when  the  land  was  acquired  or  taken  to  the  date 
when  judgment  is  given;  but  no  person  to  whom  has  been  tendered  a  sum  equal 
to  or  greater  than  the  amount  to  which  the  Court  finds  him  entitled  shall  be  allowed 
any  interest  on  such  compensation  money  from  any  time  subsequent  to  the  date 
of  such  tender. 

(2)  If  the  Court  is  of  opinion  that  the  delay  in  the  final  determination  of  any 
such  matter  is  attributable  in  whole  or  in  part  to  any  person  entitled  to  such  com- 
pensation money  or  any  part  thereof,  or  that  such  person  has  not,  upon  demand 
made  therefor,  furnished  to  the  Board  within  a  reasonable  time  a  true  statement  of 
the  particulars  of  his  claim  required  to  be  furnished  as  hereinbefore  provided,  the 
Court  may,  for  the  whole  or  any  portion  of  the  time  for  which  such  person  would  other- 
wise be  entitled  to  interest,  refuse  to  allow  him  interest,  or  it  may  allow  the  same 
at  such  rate  less  than  five  per  centum  per  annum  as  to  the  Court  appears  just. 

RESISTANCE   TO   PEACEFUL  POSSESSION. 

48.  (1)  If  any  resistance  or  opposition  is  made  by  any  person  to  the  Board,  or  any 
person  acting  for  the  Board,  entering  upon  and  taking  possession  of  any  lands,  the 
judge  of  the  Exchequer  Court,  or  any  judge  of  any  Superior  Court,  may,  on  proof 
of  the  execution  of  the  conveyance  of  such  land  to  the  Board,  or  agreement  therefor, 
or  of  the  gazetting  of  a  notice  in  Form  D  as  aforesaid,  and  after  such  notice  to  show  cause 
given  in  such  manner  as  the  judge  prescribes,  issue  his  warrant  to  the  sheriff  of  the 
district  or  township  within  which  such  lands  are  situated,  directing  him  to  put  down 
such  resistance  or  opposition,  and  to  put  the  Board,  or  some  person  acting  for  it,  in 
possession  of  the  lands. 

(2)  The  sheriff  shall  take  with  him  sufficient  assistance  for  such  purpose,  and  shall 
put  down  such  resistance  and  opposition,  put  the  Board,  or  such  person  acting  for  it, 
in  possession  of  such  lands  and  forthwith  make  return  to  the  Exchequer  Court  of  such 
warrant,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  he  executed  the  same. 

INSPECTION   AND   SURVEY   OF   AND   ENTRY   UPON   LANDS. 

49.  (1)  The  Board  may  by  itself,  its  surveyors  or  engineers,  superintendents,  agents, 
workmen  and  servants. 

(a)  enter  upon  any  land  to  whomsoever  belonging,  make  surveys  of  the  same  suffi- 
cient for  the  exercise  by  the  Board  of  any  of  its  powers  under  this  Act,  and  make 
tests  of  the  character  of  such  land  or  of  its  streams,  waters  or  watercourses;  and, 
'  1}  after  compliance  with  section  forty-one  of  this  Act  enter  upon  and  take  possesion 
of  any  land  the  acquirement  of  which  is,  in  its  judgment,  necessary  for  the  execu- 
tion of  any  of  the  purposes  of  this  Act. 

(2)  The  Board  may  employ  any  person  duly  licensed  or  empowered  to  act  as  a  sur- 
veyor for  any  province  of  Canada  or  any  surveyor  or  engineer,  to  make  any  survey,  or 
establish  any  boundary  and  furnish  the  plans  and  descriptions  of  any  land  acquired 
or  to  be  acquired  by  the  Board  for  the  execution  of  any  of  the  purposes  of  this  Act. 
The  boundaries  of  such  land  may  be  permanently  established  by  means  of  proper 
stone  or  iron  monuments  planted  by  the  engineer  or  surveyor  so  employed  by  the 
Board. 

(4)  Such  surveys,  boundaries,  plans  and  descriptions  shall  have  the  same  effect  to 
all  intents  and  purposes  as  if  the  operations  pertaining  thereto  or  connected  therewith 
had  been  performed,  and  such  boundaries  had  been  established  and  such  monuments 
planted  by  a  land  surveyor  duly  licensed  and  sworn  in,  and  for  the  province  in  which 
the  land  is  situate. 


122       DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

(5)  Such  boundaries  shall  be  held  to  be  the  true  and  unalterable  boundaries  of  such 
land,  if,— 

(a)  they  are  so  established,  and  such  monuments  of  iron  or  stone  so  planted,  after 
due  notice  of  the  intention  to  establish  and  plant  the  same  has  been  given  in 
writing  to  the  owners  or  proprietors  of  the  land  thereby  affected:  and 

(6)  a  proces-ierbal  or  written  description  of  such  boundaries  is  approved  and  signed 
in  the  presence  of  two  witnesses  by  such  engineer  or  surveyor  on  behalf  of  the 
Board  and  by  the  other  person  concerned:  or,  in  case  of  the  refusal  of  any  owner 
or  proprietor  to  approve  or  to  sign  such  proces-verbal  or  description,  such  refusal 
is  recorded  in  such  proces-ierbal  or  description;  and, 

(c)  such  boundary  marks  or  monuments  are  planted  in  the  presence  of  at  least  one 
witness  who  shall  sign  the  said  proces-verbnl  or  description. 

t6ilt  shall  not  be  incumbent  on  the  Board  or  those  acting  for  it  to  have  boundaries 
established  with  the  formalities  in  this  section  mentioned,  but  the  same  may  be 
resorted  to  whenever  the  Board  deems  it  necessary. 

DIRECTIONS   RESPECTING   COMPULSORY  PURCHASES. 

50.  In  deciding  upon  cases  meet  for  compulsory  purchase  of  land  under  this  Act 
the  Board  shall,  with  respect  to  lands  owned  and  occupied  by  farmers,  consider 
not  only  the  district  in  which  the  land  lies,  the  character  of  the  land  and  the  ade- 
quacy of  its  acreage  to  enable  successful  farming  operations,  but,  as  well,  the  extent 
of  cultivation  thereof,  the  circumstances  of  the  fanner  and  his  capacity  to  reduce, 
within  a  reasonable  time,  a  reasonable  proportion  of  his  cultivable  land  to  a  state  of 
cultivation.     For  the  purposes  of  this  section  all  land  of  a  settler  shall  be  deemed 
to  have  been  and  to  be  occupied  by  him  for  the  duration  of  his  military  service  in  the 
war  and  for  twelve  months  after  his  discharge. 

PART   IV. 
MISCELLANEOUS  PROVISIONS. 

51.  (1)  All  conveyances  from  the  Board  shall  constitute  new  titles  to  the  land  con- 
veyed and  shall  have  the  same  and  as  full  effect  as  grants  from  the  Crown  of  previously 
ungranted  Crown  lands. 

(2)  All  land  and  other  property  which,  before  the  coming  into  force  of  this  Act. 
was.  under  authority  of  any  Order  of  the  Governor  in  Council,  purchased  by  the 
Board  and  title  thereto  taken  to  His  Majesty  the  King  in  the  right  of  Canada  repre- 
sented by  the  Board,  and  all  or  any  interest  or  interests  of  His  Majesty  in  any  agree- 
ments of  sale,  mortgages  or  other  instruments  and  in  the  land  or  other  property  to 
which  such  instruments  relate,  which  interest  or  interests  were,  before  the  coming 
into  force  of  this  Act.  acquired  by  His  Majesty  through  the  instrumentality  of  the 
Board  under  the  former  Act  or  of  any  Order  of  the  Governor  in  Council,  are.  by  force 
of  this  Act.  vested  in  the  Board  as  constituted  under  this  Act. 

52.  No  consent  of  the  Board  which  is  required  by  any  provision  of  this  Act  for  the 
validation  of  any  matter  shall  be  effective  unless  given  i'n  writing  and  under  the  hand 
of  one  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Board. 

53.  In  the  event  of  its  being  shown  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Board  that  a  settler 
has  established  his  right  to  benefit  under  this  or  the  former  Act  through  misrepre- 
sentation, impersonation,  dr  other  fraud,  the  Board  may  declare  the  right  of  such 
settler  to  benefit  under  this  or  under  the  former  Act  to  have  been  forfeited,  and  there- 
upon all  loans  or  advances  made  to  such  settler  shall,  unless  the  Board  otherwise 
determines,  immediately  become  due  and  payable,  and  any  sale  of  land  made  to  him 
under  the  provisions  of  this  Act  shall  be  liable  to  be  rescinded,  at  the  discretion  of 
the  Board. 

54.  All  affidavits,  oaths,  statutory  declarations  or  solemn  affirmations  required  to  be 
taken  or  made  for  the  purposes  of  this  Act.  may,  except  as  otherwise  provided,  be  taken 
or  made  before  the  judge  or  clerk  of  any  court,  any  justice  of  the  peace,  any  commis- 
sioner for  taking  affidavits,  any  notary  public,  any  person  authorized  to  take  affidavits 
under  the  provisions  of  The  Dominion  Lands  Act.  any  District  Superintendent  of  the 
Board,  or  any  person  specially  authorized  by  the  Governor  in  Council  to  take  or  admin- 
ister the  same. 

55.  The  Board  shall  have  the  power  to  appoint  persons  to  hold  inquiries  in  aid  of  the 
execution  of  any  of  the  purposes  of  this  Act.  and  every  person  so  appointed  shall  have, 
for  the  purposes  of  his  appointment,  all  the  powers  of   a  commissioner  tinder  the 
Inquiries  Act.     Every  Commissioner  of  the  Board  shall  have,  e.r  ojjicio  in  aid  of  the 
execution  of  the  same  purposes,  like  powers. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES.       123 

56.  ( 1)  Any  Commissioner  of  the  Board,  or  any  officer  or  employee  of  the  Board 
authorized,  specifically  or  generally,  in  writing,  by  a  Commissioner  o'f  the  Board,  may 
enter  r.ny  land  to  whomsoever  belonging  for  the  purpose  of  making  inspection  thereof 
and  determining  whether  or  not  such  land  is  subject  to  compulsory  purchase  under  the 
provisions  of  this  Act:  or,  in  the  event  of  any  land  being  deemed  subject  to  com- 
pulsory purchase,  for  the  purpose  of  valuing  the  same  or  serving  any  notice  on  the  owner 
or  occupant  thereof  or  for  any  other  of  the  purposes  of  this  Act,  or  to  view  the  condition 
of,  or  to  take  over  or  repossess,  in  case  of  default  made,  any  property  in  or  over  which 
the  Board  has  any  interest  or  charge. 

(2)  Any  person  who  resists  or  obstructs  a  Commissioner  or  officer  or  employee  of  the 
Board  in 'the  execution  of  his  duties  under  this  Act  is  guilty  of  an  offence  punishable 
on  summary  conviction  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  two  hundred  dollars,  or  to  imprison- 
ment for  a  term  not  exceeding  six  months. 

57.  From  all  sales  and  grants  of  land  made  by  the  Board  all  mines  and  minerals 
shall  be  and  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  reserved,  whether  or  not  the  instrument  of 
of  sale  or  grant  so  specifies,  and  as  respects  any  contract  or  agreement  made  by  it 
with  respect  to  land  it  shall  not  be  deemed  to  have  thereby  impliedly  covenanted  or 
agreed  to  grant,  sell  or  convey  any  mines  or  minerals  whatsoever. 

58.  i  1  )  If  the  judge  of  the  Exchequer  Court  shall  so  request,  the  Governor  in  Coun- 
cil may.  as  and  when  requested,  appoint  one  or  more  persons,  qualified  for  appoint- 
ment as  judges  of  the  Exchequer  Court,  to  be  judges  ad  h^c  of  such  Court  for  the  piir- 
pose  of  assisting  in  the  performance  of  the  duties  which  are  imposed  upon  such  Court 
by  this  Act. 

Such  persons,  so  appointed,  shall,  for  all  purposes,  including  paymant  of  salary, 
be  deemed  judges  of  the  Exchequer  Court,  but  their  several  appointments  shall  be 
terminable  by  the  Governor  in  Council  whenever  the  judge  of  the  Exchequer  Court 
shall  notify  the  (.overnor  in  Council  that  there  is  no  further  occasion  for  their  assist- 
ance, and  they.  si-  >  erally,  shall  have  authority  to  transact,  with  the  powers  and  juris- 
diction of  :\  judge  of  the  Exchequer  Toiirt.  such  business  of  the  Court  arising  out  of 
this  A<  i  a|  said  judge  shall  from  time  to  time  commit  to  them,  and  such  only. 

59.  ( I     Notwithstanding  anything  in  this  Act  the  Board  is  empowered,— 

(a)  when  estimating  the  value  of  any  land  for  any  purpose  of  this  Act,  to  estimate 
it  apart  from  the  value  of  buildings  thereon; 
far  special  reasons,  in  any  case  appearing, 

(i)  to  vary  the  provisions  of  sections  eighteen  and  nineteen  of  this  Act  so  that 
an  amount  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars  may  be  diverted  from  the 
amount  not  exceedinur  two  thousand  dollars,  mentioned  in  section  eighteen 
as  the  balance  which  may  remain  unpaid  upon  a  sale  af  stock  and  equipment, 
and  may  be  added  to  the  amount  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars,  men- 
tioned in  section  nineteen  as  that  which  may  be  advanced  to  provide  or  for 
application  to  permanent  improvements; 

ii  to  \ary  the  pro-,  isions  of  sections  sixteen  to  nineteen,  inclusively,  of  this 
Act .  so  tii at  li\  e  stock  and  equipment  to  a  value  not  exceeding  three  thousand 
dollars  may  be  sold  to  a  settler,  but  so  that  the  total  amount  of  balance  of 
price  and  advances  remaining  unpaid  by  the  settler  as  the  result  of  the 
exercise  by  the  Board  of  any  of  its  powers  under  this  Act,  shall  not  exceed 
:  thousand  five  hundred  dollars. 

oi  .--lies  of  orchard  or  fruit  lands,  to  apply  the  provisions  of  section 
n  LI  this  Act,  with  such  other  provisions  thereof  as  may  depend  upon  or 
hit-.c  ivlation  to  those  of  said  section,  as  if  for  the  words  "live  stock  or  equipment" 
or  "live  stock  and  equipment  acquired  under  authority  of  this  Act "  or  words  to 
the  same  e.vect  in  said  section  or  in  any  of  said  sections  appearing,  there  were 
suUiituted  the  words  "fruit  trees,  already  planted  or  growing  on  any  land  sold 
by  the  J  Joard  to  the  settler  "  and,  for  any  purpose  of  this  Act,  to  estimate  the  value 
of  tin-  trees  and  shrubs  already  planted  or  growing  on  any  land  being  sold  by  the 
Board  to  the  settler  apart  from  the  value  of  such  land. 

(2  i  Wh'-n  a  settler  dies  indebted  to  the  Board,  under  an  agreement  of  sale  or  other- 
wise, with  respect  to  any  property  or  to  any  advance  charged  upon  any  property,  his 
rights  acquired  under  this  or  the  former  Act  shall  devolve  upon  his  heirs,  devisees  or 
personal  representatives,  pursuant  to  the  law  of  the  province  in  which  at  the  time  of 
his  death  the  property  is  situate,  but  subvert  to  all  rights,  claims  and  charges  of  the 
Board  respecting  or  affecting  such  property,  and  to  performance  by  such  heirs, 
^devisees  or  personal  representatives  of  all  the  obligations  of  his  testate  or  intestate 
with  respect  to  such  property  or  such  advance,  and  default  on  the  part  of  such  heir, 
devisee  or  personal  representative  with  respect  to  any  right,  claim  or  charge  of  the 
Board  shall  have  the  same  effect  as  would  default  on  the  part  of  the  settler  but  for 
his  death. 


124      DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE   IN  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

60.  All  mail  matter  deposited  in  any  post  office  in  Canada  addressed  to  the  Board 
or  to  any  Commissioner  or  officer  thereof  at  the  offices  of  the  Board  at  Ottawa,  and  all 
mail  matter  addressed  by  the  Board  or  by  any  Commissioner  or  officer  thereof  at  the 
offices  of  the  Board  at  Ottawa,  to  any  place  in  Canada  and  bearing:  thereon  by  imprint 
or  writing  the  words  ''The  Soldier  Settlement  Board  of  Canada' '  shall  be  carried  free, 
registered  or  otherwise,  in  the  Canadian  mails. 

61.  (1)  No  person,  firm  or  corporation  shall  be  entitled  to  charge  or  to  collect  as 
against  or  from  any  other  person,  firm  or  corporation  any  fee  or  commission  or  advance 
of  price  for  services  rendered  in  the  sale  of  any  land  made  to  the  Board,  whether  for 
the  finding  or  introducing  of  a  buyer  or  otherwise. 

(2)  No  person,  firm  or  corporation  shall  pay  to  any  other  person,  firm  or  corporation 
any  such  fee  or  commission  or  advance  of  price  for  any  such  services. 

(3)  The  Board  may  require  of  any  person,  firm  or  corporation  from  whom  it  pur- 
chases land,  or  who  is  in  any  manner  interested  therein,  the  execution  of  an  affidavit 
in  Form  E  in  the  Schedule  of  this  Act. 

(4)  If  any  such  fee  or  commission  or  advance  of  price  is  paid  by  or  to  any  such 
person,  firm  or  corporation  for  any  such  services  the  following  consequences  shall 
ensue, — 

(a)  any  person  who  in  any  affidavit  made  as  required  under  subsection  three  of  this 
section  wilfully  and  knowingly  states  an  untruth  or  suppresses  the  truth  with 
respect  to  any  matter  which,  pursuant  to  such  subsection,  he  is  required  by  way 
of  such  affidavit  to  make  disclosure,  shall  be  guilty  of  an  indictable  offence  and  be 
liable  to  a  fine  not  exceeding  five  thousand  dollars  or  to  imprisonment  for  a  term 
not  exceeding  five  years,  or  to  both  such  fine  and  such  imprisonment:  and. 

(6)  the  fee  or  commission  or  advance  in  price  paid  ma\  be  recovered  by  the  Board, 
by  suit  instituted  in  the  name  of  the  Board  as  agent  of  Hi?  Majesty,  in  any  court 
having  jurisdiction  in  debt  to  the  amount  involved,  whether  the  fron.-action  was 
one  with  respect  to  a  sale  or  projected  sale  to  the  Board,  as  if  such  amount  wore  a 
debt  due  to  the  Board,  as  aforesaid,  and  every  person  who  participated  in  the 
receipt  of  any  part  of  such  amount  shall  be  liable  to  pa}-  to  the  Board  the  part  of 
such  amount  actually  received  by  him; 

(c)  All  such  consequences  shall  have  operation  cumulatively. 

62.  (1)  Any  person  who  is  guilty  of  any  wilful  breach  or  non-observance  of  any 
provision  of  this  Act  for  which  no"  penalty  is  specially  provided  shall  be  liable  on 
summary  conviction  to  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars  or  to  imprisonment 
for  a  term  not  exceeding  one  year,  or  to  both  such  fine  and  such  imprisonment. 

(2)  Where  at  offence  under" this  Act,  whether  by  way  of  breach  or  of  non-observance 
of  any  provision  of  this  Act,  is  committed  by  a  corporation,  every  officer  or  employee 
of  the  corporation,  who  has  in  any  manner  aided  or  participated  in  the  commission 
of  the  offence  shall  be  personally  liable  as  for  the  commission  of  such  offence  by  him, 
and  prosecution  or  conviction  of  any  one  officer  or  employee  of  the  corporation  shall 
not  be  a  bar  to  prosecution  or  conviction  of  any  other  of  them. 

63.  The  Board  may,  with  the  approval  of  the  Governor  in  Council,  and  subject  to 
the  provisions  of  this  Act,  make  regulations,  prescribing, — 

(a}  the  manner  in  which  entries  for  land  and  applications  for  loans  or  advances  may 

be  made; 
(6)  the  conditions  as  to  occupation  or  otherwise  upon  which  free  entries  and  patents 

for  land  may  be  granted  and  issued; 
(e)  the  security  to  be  given  for  loans  or  advances,  the  conditions  subject  to  which 

loans  or  advances  shall  be  made,  and  the  manner  and  dates  in  and  at  which  such 

loans  or  advances  shall  be  repaid ; 

(d)  the  manner  and  conditions  in  and  upon  which  settlers  may  transfer  their  rights: 

(e)  the  conditions  subject  to  which  lands  may  be  acquired  for  the  purposes  of  this 

(/)  the  manner  in  which  lands  acquired  by  the  Board  may  be  sold  to  settlers  and 

others  and  the  conditions  as  to  occupation  or  otherwise  upon  which  such  lands 

may  be  sold; 
(g)  for  priority  of  right  as  between  applicant?  to  purchase  property  or  lor  soldier 

grants  or  for  advances  or  loans  on  the  security  of  property: 
(A)  as  to  the  qualifications  necessary  in  order  to  entitle  settlers  to  the  benefits  or 

assistance  or  to  any  particular  benefit  or  assistance  under  this  Act.  to  the  end  that 

the  settler  may  ha've  a  reasonable  prospect  of  success  as  a  farmer: 
(i)  forms  of  agreements,  mortgages,  notices  and  other  documents  necessary  to  the 

effective  operation  of  this  Act: 
(j)  advanced  rates  of  interest  to  be  paid  by  settlers  who  may  be  in  default,  such 

rates,  however,  not  to  exceed  seven  per  centum  per  annum; 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTUEE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.       125 

/.-  >  the  eucum0taoeea  and  procedure  under  which  and  whereby  the  Board  may  take 
over  or  repossess  property  in  case  of  default  made  by  settlers  in  the  observance  of 
the  pro  visions  of  this  or  off  the  former  Act  or  of  any  covenant  or  agreement  made  by 
settlers  witli  the  Board: 

authority  and  procedure  for  the  inclusion  within  the  expression  "settler"  of 
persons  who.  being  otherwise  qualified  to  be  settlers,  are  not  yet  discharged  from 
military  or  other  service: 

with' respect  to  blind  or  other  partially  but  seriously  incapacitated  settlers 
special  provisions  for  assistance  in  settlement  of  small  holdings  or  otherwise 
inclusive  of  the  remission  of  interest  in  whole  or  in  part: 

t  to  any  other  matter  concerning  which  the  Board  deems  regulations 
jie'-e-^ary  for  the  execution  of  the  purposes  of  this  Act. 

Ml  regulations  made  under  authority  of  this  Act  shall  be  published  in  the 

< i-'-.tltc.  and.  within  fifteen  days  after  the  making  thereof,  shall  be  laid  before 

Parliament,  or.  if  Parliament  is  not  then  sitting,  shall  be  laid  before  it  within  fifteen 

. Her  the  opening  of  its  next  following  session. 

ii !.     1      /  .1(7.  1<>17.  is  repealed,  but  notwithstanding,  all  officers 

and  employees  of  the  Board  are  continued  in  office  and  employment  as  if  such  repeal 
had  not  icon  had.  all  entries  granted  and  loans  made  pursuant  thereto  shall,  unless 
otherwi-e  'ieU'rmi.»fi  by  the  !;oard.  remain  subject  to  the  terms  and  conditions  on 
which  re  granted  or  made,  and  the  Loan  Regulations  and  Regu- 

lations a:i>cting   !>orni:iion   Lands  made  and  approved  under  the  said  Act,  shall, 

in  cperative  until  lawfully  repealed  or  amended. 
(2 1  All  matters  instituted  or  tilings  done  under  authority  of, — 

•  t,  1917;  or, 

(in  any  regulations  niaile  theivund;>r;  or, 
(o  any  order  of  the  (.overnor  in  Council; 

which  might  have  been  instituted  or  done  under  authority  of  this  Act  (though  insti- 
tuted or  done  before  this  Act  was  passed  t,  shall,  at  the  option  of  the  Board,  be  deemed 
to  have  been  instituted  or  done  under  authority  of  this  Act.  and  any  thereof  which  are 
now  pending  or  in  all.  at  the  option  of  the  Board,  be  deemed  to  have  orig- 

inated under  this  Act  and  may  be  continued,  completed  and  enforced  hereunder. 

SCHEDULE  OF  FORMS. 

FORM  A. 
THE  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT,  1919. 

NOTICE    OF    ESTABLISHMENT   OF  A   SETTLEMENT   AREA. 

Province 

Limits  of  Settlement  Area  No.  . 


All  concerned  are  hereby  notified  that  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  Part  Three  of 
The  Soldier  Settlement  Act,  1919,  the  Soldier  Settlement  Board  of  Canada  has  estab- 
lished and  does  hereby  establish  settlement  area  number  (one,  or  as  the  case  may  be) 
consisting  of  the  lands'within  the  limits  above  defined,  and  that  all  owners  of  blocks 
of  land  as  defined  by  said  Part  of  said  Act  situate  within  said  limits  are  required  to 
comply  with  the  terms  of  said  Part  of  said  Act  or  suffer  the  penalties  by  said  Act  pro- 
vided and  thereafter  comply  as  aforesaid,  notwithstanding.  t 
The  Soldier  Settlement  Board  of  Canada, 

X.  Y., 

Chairman. 
Ottawa  (Date). 


12'6       DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE   IN   THE    UNITED  STATES. 

FORM  B. 
THE  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT,  1919. 

NOTICE    OF   ALTERATION    OF   LIMITS    OF   (OR   OF   DISESTABLISHMENT    OF)    A   SETTLEMENT 

AREA. 


Province 

New  Limits  of  Settlement  Area  No. 


Old  Limits  of  Settlement  Area  No. .  . 


(or  "Disestablishment  of  Settlement  Area  No 

described  as  follows"  as  the  case  may  be.} 

All  concerned  are  hereby  notified  that  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  Part  III  of 
The  Soldier  Settlement  Act,  1919,  the  Soldier  Settlement  Board  of  Canada  has  altered 
the  limits  of  its  Settlement  Area  No ,  that  these  are  now  as  first  above  de- 
scribed and  that  all  owners  of  blocks  of  land  as  defined  by  said  Part  of  said  Act  situate 
within  said  new  limits  who  have  not  already  complied  with  the  terms  of  said  Part 
of  said  Act  are  required  to  so  comply  or  suffer  the  penalties  by  said  Act  provided  and 
thereafter  comply  as  aforesaid,  notwithstanding.  (Or  "has  entirelv  disestablished  its 

settlement  area  No as  above  described  and  that  all  lands  within  the  limits 

of  such  former  settlement  area  are  hereby  freed  from  the  operation  of  the  provisions 
of  said  The  Soldier  Settlement  Act,  1919,"  an  the  case  may  be.} 

The  Soldier  Settlement  Board  of  Canada. 

X.  Y., 

Ottawa  (Date).  Chairman. 

FORM  C. 

THE  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  ACT,  1919. 

RETURN  OF  OWNER  OF  LAND  WITHIN  A  SETTLEMENT  AREA  TO  THE  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT 
BOARD  OF  CANADA. 

Province 

Limits  of  Settlement  Area  No. . . 


Names  and  Post  Office  addresses  of  person  or  persons  making  return 


The  undersigned  files  this  return  with  a  District  Superintendent  of  the  Soldier 
Settlement  Board  of  Canada  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  Part  III  of  The  Soldier 
Settlement  Act,  1919. 

The  undersigned  owns  or  own  personally  (or  if  owner  along  with  others  state  names 
and  extent  of  interests  of  others  and  their  post  office  addresses  i  within  the  settlement 
area  above  described,  the  following  described  parcels  of  land: — 

Parcel  No.  1 (insert 

location  and  description). 

Parcel  No.  2 (insert. 

location  and  description). 

Parcel  No.  3,  etc. 

Parcel  No.  1  was  cultivated  to  the  extent  of 

per  centum  of  its  area  during  the  season  of  191. .  and  its  average  cultivation  for  the 

two  immediate  preceding  seasons  was per  centum  of  its  area.  Parcel  No. 

1  is  encumbered  as  follows 

(give  description  of  encumbrances  and  names  and  post  office  addresses  of  the  holders 
thereof). 


DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED   STATES.        127 

Parcel  Xo.  2  i give  the  same  particular?  as  to  each  parcel). 

The  owner  if  willing  to  Fell  hi*  interest  in  Parcel  Xo.  1  to  the  Board  to  be  applied 

to  the  purposes  of  The  Soldier  Settlement  Act,  1919,  for  the  sum  of 

dollars. 

The  owner  is  willing  to  sell  his  interest  in  Parcel  Xo.  2  to  the  Board  to  be  applied 

to  the  purposes  of  The  Soldier  Settlement  Act,  1919,  for  the  sum  of 

.dollars. 

Give  the  same  information  as  respects  each  other  parcel. 

The  owner  is  willing  to  sell  his  interest  in  all  the  above-mentioned  and  described 
parcels  to  the  Board  to  be  applied  to  the  purposes  of  The  Soldier  Settlement  Act,  1919, 
for  the  sum  of dollars. 

There  are  buildings  and  improvements  upon  such  land  as  follows: — On  Parcel  Xo. 
1 (short  description).  Parcel  Xo.  '2  and  ( like  particu- 
lar- . 

Dated  at in  the  province  of this 

clay  of 19.. 

Owner  or  oinurs. 
Signed  in  the  presence  of 


Witness  to  signature  of 
Witness  to  signature  of 

FORM  D. 

THE  SOLDIER  SETTLEMENT  BOARD  OF  CANADA. 
NOTICE  OF  COMPULSORY  PURCHASE  OF  LAND. 

Province 

Settlement  Area  Xo 

Description  of  Land  Compulsorily  Purchased 


To  all  persons  in  any  manner  interested  as  owners  or  otherwise  in  the  above  described 
land. 

Take  Xotice  that  the  Soldier  Settlement  Board  of  Canada,  pursuant  to  power  pro- 
vided in  and  by  Part  III  The  Soldier  Settlement  Act.  1919,  has  compulsorily 
purchased  the  above  described  parcel  (or  parcels)  of  land,  that  said  Board  is  willing 

to  pay  therefor  the  sum  of dollars, 

and  that  by  publication  of  this  notice  and  by  force  of  said  Act  the  said  described 
land  is  now  vested  in  said  Board  as  for  an  estate  of  fee  simple  in  possession  (or,  in  the 
province  of  Quebec  "in  said  Board  as  absolute  owner")  freed  and  discharged  from  all 
other  estates  and  from  all  encumbrances,  liens,  claims  and  interests  whatever  and  as 
effectually  as  if  it  hid  teen  conveyed  to  the  Board  by  deed  or  conveyance  of  all 
persons  entitled  to  any  interest  therein,  but  that  if  the  owner  or  other  persons  inte»- 
ested  in  said  described  land  are  not  willing  to  accept  as  payment  for  his  or  their  re 
spective  interests  in  or  claims  against  said  described  land 'in  full  of  their  interests 
and  claims  the  amount  of  compensation  money  mentioned  in  this  notice,  other  com- 
pensation to  be  ascertained  as  provided  in  said  Part  III  of  said  Act.  will  be  pa,id  by 
said  Board. 

The  Soldier  Settlement  Board  of  (  anada. 
X.  Y.. 

Chairman. 
Ottawa  (Date). 


128       DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE   IX   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

FORM  E. 

AFFIDAVIT  OF  VENDOR  OF  LAND  TO  THE  BOARD. 
IN  THE  MATTER  OP  THE  SOLDIER  SETTLEMEXT  ACT,  1919. 

I, of in  the 

of   ,    Province  of   ,    (occupation)  make 

oath  and  say  as  follows : — 

1.  Produced  herewith  and  shown  to  me  and  marked  Exhibit  A  by  the  functionary 
before  whom  this  affidavit  is  sworn  is  a  certain  conveyance  of  land  to  the  Soldier 
Settlement  Board  of  Canada. 

2.  IJiave  personal  knowledge  of  the  matters  hereinafter  deposed  to. 

3.  Xo  person,  firm  or  corporation  has  collected  or  attempted  to  collect  from  me, 
nor  been  paid  by  me  nor,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  has  any  person  collected  or  attempted 
to  collect  from  any  other  person,  whether  interested  in  the  land  to  which  such  con- 
veyance relates  or  otherwise,  or  charged  as  against  any  person,  or  been  paid  by  any 
person  any  fee  or  commission  or  advance  of  price  for  services  rendered  in  the  sale  of 
such  land  to  the  Board,  whether  for  the  finding  of  a  buyer  or  otherwise. 

4.  The  last  sale  of  said  land  (or  part  thereof)  previously  to  the  taid  conveyance  to 
the  Board  was  made  on  or  about  the day  of 19 

The  grantors  were of 

and  the  grantees  were There  was  paid   for 

said  land  on  that  occasion  the  sum  of dollars 

which  is  an  average  of dollars  per  acre.     The 

improvements  made  upon  said  land  since  said  sale  have  been  as  follows: — . 


5.  The  consideration  mentioned  in  said  Exhibit  is 

dollars  and  the  persons  who  are  to  receive  the  same  and  the  amounts  that  each  is 

entitled  to  receive,  and  to  whom  the  Board  may  make  payment  direct,  are  now  truly 

stated,  to  wit: — 

(a) (name,  post  office  address  and  amount  receivable) 

(b) (name,  post  office  address  and  amount  receivable) 

(c)  (name,  post  oince  address  and  amount  receivable) 

Sworn  before  me  at 

in  the 

province  of 

this dav  of 

19.. 

EXHIBIT  B. 

10-11  GEORGE  V. 


CHAP.  19. 
An  Act  to  amend  The  Soldier  Settlement  Act,  1919. 

[Assented  to  llth  May,  1920.] 

His  Majesty,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Com- 
mons of  Canada,  enacts  as  follows: — 

1.  Section  two  of  The  Soldier  Settlement  Act,  1919,  chapter  seventy-one  of  the  statutes 
of  1919,  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  of  paragraph  (*)  thereof  the  words  following: — 
"Further  provided  that  the  word  'settler'  as  applicable  to  the  class  of  persons  num- 
bered (3)  in  this  definition  shall  be  deemed  to  include  male  settlers  only." 

2.  Section  three  of  the  said  Act  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  of  subsection  one 
thereof  the  words  following: — "lie  shall  have  and  be  accorded  the  same  rights  or 
privileges  as  to  transportation,  free  or  at  reduced  rates,  upon  railways,  as  are  from 
time  to  time  enjoyed  by  a  deputy  head  of  a  Department." 

3.  Section  seventeen  of  the  said  Act  is  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "acquired 
by  purchase"  from  the  second  line  of  subsection  two  thereof.     Said  section  is  further 
amended  by  inserting  between  the  word  "effected"  and  the  word  "by"  in  the  last 
line  of  the  section  the  words  "or  to  be  effected.'' 


DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULTURE   IN    THE   UNITED   STATES.        129 

4.  Section  thirty-two  of  the  said  Act  is  repealed  and  the  following  is  substituted 
therefor: — 

"32.  (\  Every  settler  obtaining  advances  from  the  Board  for  any  of  the  purposes 
of  the  Act  may  be  required,  if  the  Board  considers  the  security  otherwise  insufficient,, 
to  furnish  security  on  any  property  owned  or  held  by  him. 

"(2)  All  agreements  of  sale  or  otherwise,  all  instruments  evidencing  liens  or  charges,, 
and  all  other  documents  authorized  or  required  by  this  Act.  shall  be  made  in  such 
form  and  according  to  such  forms,  and  shall  contain  such  provisions  as  the  Board 
shall  provide,  and  every  such  document  shall  have  effect  as  if  the  form  thereof  were 
statutory,  and  were  provided  by  and  as  part  of  this  \<-t." 

5.  Section  fifty-nine  of  the  said  Act  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  of  subsection 
one  thereof  the  following  paragraphs: — 

'•«•/>  in  all  cases  of  sales  of  unimproved  lands,  to  vary  the  terms  of  payment  provided 
by  section  sixteen  of  this  Act  so  that  the  h'rst  annual  instalment  shall  be  repayable 
not  later  than  two  years  from  the  date  of  the  sale  and  shall  consist  of  the  accrued 
interest  only: 

••••  '  in  all  cases  of  sales  of  stock  and  equipment  for  the  operation  of  unimproved 
lands,  to  vary  the  provisions  of  section  eighteen  of  th;s  Act  so  that  the  terms  of 
payment  shall  be  all  cash  down.  or.  at  the  option  of  the  Board,  payment  in  not 
more  than  six  equal,  consecutive,  annual  instalments.  (  ommencing  not  later  than 
three  years  from  the  date  of  the  sale,  with  interest  at  five  per  centum  per  annum, 
on  the  amortization  plan,  said  interest  to  begin  to  accrue  two  years  from  the  date 
of  the  sale: 

"(/)  in  all  cases  of  sales  of  stock  and  equipment  for  the  operation  of  improved  farms, 
to  vary  the  provisions  of  section  eighteen  of  th;s  Act  su  that  the  terms  of  payment 
shall  be  all  cash  down,  or.  at  the  option  of  the  Board,  such  per  centum  cash  down, 
as  the  Board  may  determine,  and  the  balance  be  repayable  in  six,  or  less,  equal 
consecutive,  annual  instalments  commencing  upon  a  date  determined  upon  by 
the  Board,  but  not  later  than  two  year-  from  the  date  of  the  sale,  with  interest  at 
live  per  centum  per  annum,  on  the  amortization  plan: 

•  ii  for  any  purpose  of  the  Act,  to  determine  what  constitutes  unimproved  or  im- 
proved land  or  a  farm; 

"(k)  in  all  cases  of  sales  of  seed  grain  and  feed  or  in  cases  of  advances  for  the  pay- 
ment of  taxes  and  insurance,  to  require  that  the  settler's^indebtedness  to  the 
the  date  Board  in  connection    with  such  sale  or  advance  be  repaid  within  one 
year  from  of  the  advance,  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  five  per  centum  per  annum." 
*:.  Se<  tion  sixty-one  of  the  said  Act  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  thereof  the 
following  subsection:— 

No  officer,  agent  or  employee  of  or  under  the  Board  shall  directly  or  indirectly, 
in  his  own  name  or  in  that  of  any  other  person,  except  by  or  under  the  authority  of 
the  Board,  purchase,  acquire  or  sell  any  land  or  other  property  of  such  character  a-- 
the  Board  is  authorized  to  purchase,  acquire  or  sell  under  this  Act  from  or  to  any 
settler  who  is  indebted  to  the  Board  or  whose  application  for  an  advance  or  to  purchase 
any  property  from  the  Board  is  pending,  nor  shall  such  officer,  agent  or  employee 
act  as  an  age'nt  or  otherwise  of  any  person  in  purchasing,  acquiring,  or  selling  or  other- 
wise as  aforesaid,  nor  receive  any  commission  or  compensation  in  connection  there- 
with, and  any  officer,  agent  or  employee  violating  the  provisions  of  this  subsection 
shall  in  addition  to  any  criminal  liability  incurred  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  this 
Aci.  be  liable  to  summary  dismissal  on  the  order  of  the  Board  and  the  liability  to  or 
imposition  of  such  penalt'y  shall  not  affect  the  right  which  any  person  may  have  to 
briir_:  a '.rain  si  him  any  civil  action." 

7.  Section  sixty-three  of  the  said  Act  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  of  paragraph 
(c)  the  words  following: — "including  dates  at  which  amortized  or  other  payments- 
shall  be  consolidated  or  commence. '' 

8.  The  following  sections  are  added  to  the  said  Act  as  sections  sixty-five  and  sixty- 
six: — 

"65.  (1 )  The  marks  or  brands  specified  in  this  section  in  that  behalf  may  be  applied 
in  or  on  any  property  of  the  Board  to  denote  the  Board's  ownership  or  interest  in  such 
property.  But  the  omission  to  apply  any  such  mark  or  brand  shall  not  affect  such 
ownership  or  interest. 

56664—21 9 


130       DEVELOPMENT  OF   AGRICULTURE   IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Marks  appropriated  for  the  use  of  the  Soldier  Settlement  Board  in  marking  its  property. 
Property.  Marks  or  Brands. 

Live  stock Upstanding  broad  arrow  with  its  base  abutting  on  lazy  S, 

with  or  without  any  numerals  in  any  order. 
Equipment Broad  arrow  with  its  base  abutting  on  lazy  S. 

"(2)  It  shall  be  lawful  for  the  Board  or  its  officers.  airents.  and  workmen  to  apply 
such  marks  or  brands,  or  any  of  them,  in  or  on  any  such  property. 
;  "(3)  No  person  shall,  without  the  authority  of  the  Board,  the  proof  of  which  shall 
lie  on  him,  apply  any  of  the  said  marks  or  brands  in  or  on  any  property  of  the  Board, 
nor  take  out,  destroy  or  obliterate,  wholly  or  in  part,  from  any  property,  any  of  the 
said  marks  or  brands. 

"(4)  No  person  shall,  without  the  authority  of  the  Board,  the  proof  of  which  shall 
lie  on  him.  receive,  possess,  keep,  sell  or  deliver  any  property  bearing  any  marks  or 
brands  as  aforesaid . 

"(5)  Notwithstanding  any  law,  whether  statute  or  otherwise,  in  force  in  any  Prov- 
ince, authorizing  or  requiring  the  registration  or  recording  of  marks  or  brands,  or 
prohibiting  the  use  of  any  mark  or  brand  which  has  not  been  registered,  or  prescrib- 
ing any  procedure  to  be 'followed  in  connection  therewith,  the  use  and  application 
by  the  Board  or  any  of  its  authorized  officers  or  employees  of  the  said  marks  or  brands, 
shall  not  s:«  long  as  any  ownership  or  interest  of  or  in  the  property  affected  is  vested  in 
the  Board,  be  subject  to  or  within  the  operations  of  such  ptovinciftl  laws. 

"tiii.  '  I )  While  a  settler  is  indebted  to  the  Board  in  connection  with  sale  of  land  <>i 
other  property  to  him  by  the  Board,  or  while  any  sum  remains  unpaid  upon  the 
aggregate  advances  or  payments  made  from  time  to  time  pursuant  to  the  provisions 
of  this  Act  or  otherwise  to'or  on  behalf  of  the  settler,  and  secured  by  or  charged  whether 
under  this  Act  or  otherwise,  upon  property,  real,  personal  or  other,  of  the  settler,  or 
upon  the  settler's  interest  in  any  property,  the  Board  may  require  that  the  settler 
s'hall  insure  in  favour  of  the  Board  anv  property  to  the  extent  of  its  insurahle  value 
and  shall  assign  and  deliver  over  unto  the  Board,  as  the  interest  of  the  Board  may 
appear,  the  policy  or  policies  of  insurance  or  receipt  or  receipts  thereto  appertaining. 
and  deliver  t3  the  Board  all  receipts  for  taxes  paid  upon  any  such  propertv.  insured 
or  otherwise. 

"(2)  Notwithstanding  anything  to  the  contrary  in  this  Act.  if  the  settler  fails  or 
negle.  ts  to  pay  any  lawful  rates,  taxes  or  assessments,  or  to  keep  such  property  insured 
as  afore md,  then  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  Board  to  pay  such  rates,  taxes  or  i 
ments.  or  to  insure  such  property  as  aforesaid,  and  all  moneys  expended  by  the  Hoard 
with  interest  at  the  rate  of  seven  per  centum  per  annum  computed  from  the  time  of 
advancing  the  same  shall  be  repaid  by  the  settler  on  demand,  and  in  the  meantime 
the  amount  of  such  pivment  shall  be  added  to  the  purchase  price  of  suoh  propertv, 
or  shall  become  a  part  of  the  principal  secured  bv  any  change,  lien  or  mortgage  in 
favour  of  the  Board,  as  the  case  may  be.  and  may  in  the  discretion  of  the  Board  be  made 
repayable  at  the  time  appointed  for  the  payment  of  the  next  installment  in  connc  tion 
with  the  account  to  whi.?h  such  indebtedness  is  charged.  " 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Where  do  they  get  that  land  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  They  take  public  land  and  they  buy  private  land  also. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Where? 

Mr.  JONES.  Anywhere  in  Canada. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Which  one  of  the  States  up  there  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  The  bulk  of  it  is  from  Manitoba  and  west.  I  have  seen 
the  figures.  Most  of  it  is  from  Manitoba  and  west  of  there. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Alberta  and  Saskatchewan? 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes;  Alberta,  Saskatchewan,  British  Columbia,  and 
Manitoba.  I  think  those  four  western  Provinces  were  the  bulk  of  it. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  That  is  due  to  the  fact  that  there  is  a  larger  area  of 
public  land  in  those  Provinces  than  there  is  east  of  them. 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes;  and  the  board  can  also  buy  private  land,  but  of 
course  in  making  a  loan  to  buy  private  land  the  settlement  board 
makes  the  purchase  and  approves  the  valuation  before  they  make  the 
purchase. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Wliat  has  been  the  success  of  those  private  land  pur- 
chases at  high  prices  ? 


HKVK.LOPAIKXT    OK    ACKKTLTrRK    IX    T II K    UNITED    STATES.        131 

Mr.  JONES.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  what  prices  they  have  paid. 
In  fact,  I  looked  their  report  over  very  carefully  to  find  out  how  much 
land  they  had  taken  privately  and  how  much  was  public  lands,  and 
there  is  not  a  thing  in  their  report  to  show.  It  simply  shows  a  total 
of  so  many  farms  with  a  total  of  so  many  acres,  and  that  is  the 
reason  I  hope  to  get  their  annual  report,  because  I  think  that  will 
segregate  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now.  have  YOU  anvthing  further,  Mr.  Jones,  to 
offer  > 

Mr.  .IONKS.  I  think  that  is  all,  except  I  do  want  to  impress  upon 
the  committee  that  regardless  of  the  tact  that  you  may  nave  heard 
a  great  deal  more  talk  about  other  demands  of  ex-service  men,  of 
course  the  campaign  for  taking  care  of  compensation  and  so  on 
which  is  now  being  handled  in  the  Senate  bill  and  the  campaign  for 
the  bonus,  the  fact  remains  that  the  demand  for  land  among  the  very 
best  character  of  ex-service  men,  the  very  best  character  of  American 
citizens,  is  just  a-  large  as  it  ever  was.  if  they  can  actually  see  their 
way  to  get  it,  and  there  will  be  anywhere  from  5  to  100  applicants 
for  every  farm  as  fast  as  it  is  opepau  up  for  10  years. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  you  are  correct  in  that,  from  my  own 
observation. 

Mr.  HKRRICK.  Before  you  leave  I  just  want  to  ask  a  question  or 
two.  Isn't  it  rather  a  fact  that  the  ex-service  men  as  a  whole  realize 
that  there  can't  be  any  such  thing  as  a  free  homestead  or  out  and  out 
land  grant :  that  about  all  he  can  hope  for  is  some  kind  of  a  preference 
clause  in  anv  of  this  land  opening  or  these  reclamation  acts  or  any- 
thing of  that  nature,  and  that  as  an  actual  fact  he  really  looks  for 
both  the  bonus  and  this  preferential  legislation? 

Mr.  .IONKS.    I  think  he  does. 

Mr.  HKRRK  K.  That  has  been  my  experience. 

Mr.  JONKS.  There  is  no  question  but  what  he  will  ask  for  both  - 
we  will  ask  for  both. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  You  refer  to  soldiers  of  former  wars  receiving  land-. 
What  wars  do  you  refer  to  ( 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  the  veteran-  <>f  the  Civil  War  settled  a  good  deal 
of  land  in  the  West  and  Middle  Western  State>.  I  don't  know  the 
proportion. 

Mr.  SIN.NOTT.  Well,  did  they  receive  land  or  did  they  just  receive 
certain  credits  for  their  servie, 

The  CHAIRMAN.   There  was  some  bounty  land,  or  scrip. 

Mr.  JONKS.  I  think  there  was  some  bounty  land  and  homestead 
preference  that  extends  to  this  day.  Of  course  that  was  free  land 
and  there  wa>  lots  of  it. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  I  don't  recall  the  soldiers  of  the  Civil  War  receiving 
any  land  grants:  they  did  receive  certain  privileges. 

Mr.  JONES.  1  think  that  was  the  fact,  that  there  was  available  free 
land  at  that  time,  which  was  perfectly  fertile  land. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Didn't  they  get  a  good  deal  of  land  on  what 
is  known  as  land  scrip?  Didn't  the  Government  issue  to  them  what 
really  amount>  to  the  right  to  take  up  land  ( 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  That  was  prior  to  the  Civil  War.  The  Civil  War 
soldiers,  of  course,  had  the  advantage  of  the  homestead  act,  which 
was  passed  shortly  after  Lincoln's  time. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  But  if  I  am  not  greatly  mistaken,  I  think  there 
were  some  concessions  made  after  the  Civil  War. 


132        DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE    IX    THE    UNITED   STATK>. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  As  I  understand  it,  the  law  provided  that  scrip  might 
be  issued  in  connection  with  services  in  the  Civil  War  so  that  where  a 
veteran  of  that  war  was  entitled  to  160  acres  of  land,  for  instance, 
and  he  only  located  80  acres,  then  the  General  Land  Office  issued 
what  they  called  ''soldiers'  additional  scrip"  for  the  difference  be- 
tween the  land  to  which  he  had  obtained  a  patent  and  the  total  area 
to  which  he  was  entitled.  That  scrip  he  could  sell  for  cash,  and  it 
passed  into  the  market;  anybody  could  apply  it  and  use  it. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Or  couldn't  he  go  and  take  additional  land  on 
it  '. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  The  scrip  was  issued  to  the  veteran  and  he  could  use 
it  himself  or  sell  it  to  somebody  else. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Before  you  go/Mr.  Jones;  I  just  want  to  ask  this  one 
question. 

What  do  you  mean  by  the  bonus  and  the  land  settlement  too  ? 
Just  what  am  I  to  take  from  that  answer  \ 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  the  gentleman  asked  me  if  the  soldiers  would  not 
ask  for  this  preference  and  for  bonus  as  well,  and  I  said  very  likely 
they  would.  As  the  bonus  bill  tibw  stands,  it  is  a  fivefold  bill.  The 
Fordney  bill  has  the  land  settlement  feature  in  it.  while  the  Senate 
bill  has  it  cut  out. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  have  got  to  provide  means  whereby  you  can  get 
the  land  and  get  it  into  shape ;  if  it  is  arid  or  semiarid  you  have  got  to 
provide  water  for  it,  and  if  it  is  cut  over  you  have  got  to  provide  for 
its  cleaning  up,  or  money  for  that  purpose.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
swamp  lands.  The  thing  is  to  get  the  money  and  have  this  work 
done  and  give  the  ex-service  man  an  opportunity,  a  preference  right 
to  do  the  work;  put  the  farm  in  some  shape  and  then  give  them 
preference  right  to  file  on  it  for  a  home.  You  are  giving  him  some- 
thing then,  aren't  you? 

Mr.  JOXES.  Yes,  I  think  that  is  the  purpose  of  this  bill,  and  it  is 
very  necessar\T. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  this  bill  will  go  to  that  extent  along  the  reclama- 
tion of  arid  and  semiarid  lands,  and  you  think  there  is  a  very  large 
percentage  of  the  ex-service  men  standing  behind  this  character  of 
legislation  ? 

Mr.  JOXES.  Absolutely.  I  think  they  will  be  solidly  behind  it. 
I  don't  think  that  they  would  say,  "We  will  take  preference  and 
eliminate  any  claim  that  we  may  have  for  a  bonus,''  because  not  all 
the  soldiers  could  get  land:  not  half  of  them.  I  don't  know  what 
proportion  could. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Mr.  Jones,  to  keep  the  record  of  this  committee 
clear,  you  understand  this  committee  has  no  jurisdiction  over  the 
bonus  feature  ? 

Mr.  JOXES.  I  understand  that  perfectly  well.  I  think  this  is  a 
reclamation  bill  with  soldier  preference,  not  a  bonus  bill. 

Mr.  SMITH.  And  this  legislation  is  intended  to  benefit  the  soldiers 
in  addition  to  any  legislation  that  may  be  enacted  under  the  bonus 
plan  * 

Mr.  JONES.  I  so  understand  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact.  I  think  that 
the  technical  provisions  of  this  bill  are  superior  and  will  create  a  good 
deal  more  land,  a  good  may  more  opportunities,  more  funds  for 
soldiers  than  the  land  features  of  the  bonus  bill,  which  has  a  co-called 
settlement  clause  in  it.  I  think  this  bill  will  create  more  available 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES.        133 

lands,  make  more  farms  for  more  soldiers  than  the  land  settlement 
feature  of  the  bonus  bill,  but  land  settlement  is  only  one  of  four 
features  in  the  bonus  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  this  is  just  simply  a  question,  signifying  no 
attitude  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  and  I  am  satisfied  it  signifies  the 
attitude  of  no  one  on  the  committee,  but  I  am  just  going  to  ask  a 
question. 

Is  it  your  view  that  we  would  get  better  results  and  do  more  for 
the  ex-service  man  if,  instead  of  figuring  on  a  bonus,  a  cash  bonus, 
we  would  provide  ready  money  now,  enough  at  least  to  start  this 
kind  of  work  going,  whereby  you  could  in  a  short  time  provide  him  a 
home,  or  as  many  homes  as  you  could,  and  keep  increasing  it  from  the 
revolving  fund  ?  Would  we  do  more  for  the  ex-service  man  by  doing 
that  than  we  would  by  giving  a  cash  bonus? 

Mr.  JONES.  You  mean  to  ultimately  provide  that  opportunity  for 
every  ex-service  man  ? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes,  just  as  far  as  we  can  go. 

Mr.  JONES.  Just  as  far  as  you  can  go  doesn't  mean  every  ex- 
service  man.  That  is  the  difficulty.  I  will  say  that  the  home 
opportunity  is  wortji  a  great  deal  more  than  the  bonus,  than  the 
cash  bonus,  but  I  must  in  fairness  say  that  I  don't  see  why  you  can 
create  that  home  opportunity  for  the  4,000,000  to  5,000.000  men  who 
are  looking  for  some  compensation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  don't  think  we  ought  to  assume  that  this  Govern- 
ment is  not  capable  of  furnishing  a  home  for  every  soldier  that  wants 
to  go  on  it.  We  have  the  land;  we  have  the  climate;  we  have  the 
opportunity  for  him  to  work,  and  the  question  is  to  get  the  public 
behind  it  so  as  to  start  to  work  and  then  keep  a  revolving  fund  until 
these  men  get  these  homes. 

Mr.  JONES.  As  near  as  you  can  do  that,  your  home  aid  or  your 
home  opportunity  is  certainly  vastly  more  helpful  to  the  individual 
and  the  country  at  large. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  t)o  you  think  that  one  man  should  get  a  farm  and  the 
bonus  too,  and  another  man  should  get  nothing  but  the  bonus? 
Would  that  be  equitable  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  am  assuming  in  that  position  that  you  are  not  giving 
him  a  bonus  when  you  are  giving  him  this  preference.  Now  you 
might  justly  assume  that  you  are,  that  you  are  giving  him  something 
very  tangible,  very  valuable. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Is  it  not  quite  likely.  Mr.  Jones,  that  if  we  should  enact 
this  legislation  and  start  in  on  this  great  expenditure,  that  the  ex- 
service  man  in  the  industrial  centers  would  be  benefited  because  of 
the  constant  employment  he  would  have,  by  reason  of  the  increased 
market  created  on  account  of  this  expenditure  of  money  in  the  rec- 
lamation of  land  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  He  would.  I  think  everybody  in  the  United  States 
would  be  benefited. 

Mr.  SMITH  of  Idaho.  It  is  more  important  that  the  ex-service  man 
have  permanent  employment  than  it  is  to  have  $100  in  cash  and 
probablv  unemployment  for  years. 

Mr.  JONES.  There  is  no  question  that  he  would  be  benefited. 
How  immediately  or  directly  would  be  hard  to  say,  and  he  would 
find  a  good  many  ex-service  men  that  would  not  immediately  grasp 
the  fact  that  they  were  getting  that  benefit.  I  think  it  is  there 
unquestionably. 


134       DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICULTURE   IX    THE   UNITED  STATES. 

• 

Mr.  RAKER.  Xow  I  did  not  quite  carry  out  my  thought,  and  I 
want,  with  the  addition  of  Mr.  Smith's  suggestion,  which  is  valua- 
ble—we have  been  working  two  years  and  have  got  nothing:  we 
haven't  got  employment  for  these  men;  we  haven't  provided  for  their 
homes;  we  haven't  provided  them  a  bonus,  and  what  I  am  asking  you 
as  a  representative  of  the  ex-service  man.  knowing  their  desires, 
knowing  their  interest,  knowing  what  the  country  wants  to  do,  if 
we  can  get  at  it,  if  it  would  not  be  better,  rather  than  to  keep  putting 
off  the  question  of  bonus  and  the  large  amount  of  outlay  entailed,  if 
it  would  not  be  better  if  we  commenced  to  provide  homes  for  these 
men  under  the  methods  provided  in  this  bill,  and  other  legislation  of 
kindred  nature  whereby  it  provides  a  home  for  the  man  rather  than 
to  stop  this  development  and  give  a  cash  bonus  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Well,  I  think  you  are  right  about  that,  as  you  state  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  asking  you  for  information,  because  I  know  with 
the  committee  and  everybody  that  is  interested,  that  we  seem  at 
loggerheads,  because  there  are  so  man}'  opposing  the  cash  bonus  in 
the  large  centers,  and  then  there  is  a  question  that  if  you  pay  that 
money  out  they  will  have  nothing  to  do  the  work  with,  and  the 
question  in  my  mind  is  which  will  be  better  for  the  ex-service  man  as 
a  class  and  the  country  generally,  to  give  them  the  cash  and  let  them 
spend  it,  or  take  this  money  and  add  as  much  to  it  as  we  can  and 
make  a  revolving  fund  and  build  homes  for  them. 

Air.  JONES.  I  think  the  home  building  unquestionably  is  the  more 
beneficial,  but  when  I  say  that  you  understand  1  think  that  if  you 
put  it  to  a  vote  of  all  the  ex-service  men  with  only  the  amount  of 
information  they  have  to-day,  they  would  vote  for  the  cash  bonus, 
if  they  had  to  select  between  the  two.  because  of  many  reasons. 
many  doubts,  and  many  questions.  They  doubt  whether  they  are 
v  doubt  wl 

?' 

i\v  say. 
believe  that  the  home  opportunity  is  much  more  valuable. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  That  has  been  the  result  from  the  votes  that  have 
been  taken,  has  it  not  '. 

Mr.  JONES.  Yes;  when  we  took  a  straw  ballot  through  our  paper, 
and  other  people  have  also,  and  the  preponderance  has  been  for  the 
cash  bonus,  liut  as  I  say.  that  is  largely  because  men  have  believed 
that  if  they  got  the  cash  the}*  would  have  it.  and  if  they  hoped  for 
any  thing  else  they  might  never  get  it. 

Air.  SINNOTT.    I  low  much  of  a  preponderance  was  that  ( 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  80  per  cent  were  for  the  cash  in  the  straw 
ballots  that  we  took  through  our  paper,  and  probably  the  same 
amount  through  others.  . 

Mr.  HERRICK.  If  I  may  be  permitted  to  butt  into  this  talk  again, 
and  I  am  going  to  assure  my  friend  here  that  I  am  in  entire  sympathy 
with  his  idea,  but  I  am  afraid  there  is  one  little  point  that  must  be 
taken  into  consideration  .and  that  is  this:  Some  of  these  soldiers  are 
skilled  laborers,  skilled  mechanics — of  course  I  am  not  undertaking 
to  say  what  percentage,  but  some  of  them  are  skilled  laborers,  and 
being  skilled  laborers  they  make  more  money  than  they  would  on  a 
farm,  and  this  percentage  of  skilled  laborers,  of  course,  could  not  be 
gotten  onto  any  land  or  to  take  advantage  of  what  is  proposed  here, 
although  I  am  in  sympathy  with  it,  but  the  fact  remains  that  there  is  a 


going  to  get  land;  they  doubt  whether  they  are  going  to  get  anything 
from  the  Government".  So  a  great  many  ex-service  men  are  simply 
in  that  frame  of  mind  that  thev  sav.  '  Give  me  the  cash."  But  I  do 


DEVELOPMENT   OF  AGRICULT  IBIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllll™™!™  135 

A     000016228     9 

certain  percentage  of  these  ex-service  men  that  are  skilled  workmen, 
and  you  would  not  get  them  on  the  land;  therefore  unless  you  wished 
to  do  them  an  injustice  you  would  have  to  give  them  something  in 
the  way  of  a  bonus,  wouldn't  you  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  took  the  general  question  for  the  benefit  of  the  men 
to  get  a  home,  not  only  farm  loans  but  the  opportunity  of  owning  a 
home  anywhere.  Of  course  you  would  not  find  every  ex-soldier  that 
would  want  to  go  on  a  farm.  I  don't  suppose  hall  of  them  would 
want  farms,  but  they  do  want  homes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  assuming  this:  Here  are  100  men;  none  ol 
them  have  the  means  to  buy  a  home;  wouldn't  they  much  prefer, 
rather  than  to  take  $500  cash,  if  arrangements  could  be  made  so  in 
his  turn  each  might,  within,  say,  5  or  10  years,  be  able  to  get  a  home 
by  this  combination  and  this  providing  the  money,  whereby  you 
could  start  in  and  let  them  draw  for  it,  and  eventually  this  one 
would  get  a  home  and  then  that  one  would  get  it,  and  they  would 
all  work  in  the  meantime  and  build  up  the  community,  and  in  10  or 
15  years  they  would  all  have  homes,  and  I  was  wondering  whether 
or  not  the  ex-service  man  doesn't  feel  that  way  about  it? 

Mr.  JONES.  I  think  he  does.  I  think  if  you  could  put  it  to  him 
in  that  way  he  would  exactly  agree  with  that  proposition — that  it 
would  be  worth  more  than  the  cash  payment  to  him,  if  he  is  equally 
sure  of  getting  one  or  the  other. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  am  just  taking  it  from  personal  experience  and 
observation  of  other  men.  I  would  be  willing  to  work  10  years  if  I 
might  be  certain  at  that  time  that  I  was  going  to  be  able  to  get  a 
home. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  That  is  it,  if  the  soldier  positively  knew  that  a 
workable  plan  was  going  to  be  worked  out  in  such  a  way  that  he 
would  actually  get  a  home,  he  would  say,  "I  will  take  the  home." 
But  the  ordinary  young  man  who  served  in  the  Army  does  not 
know  that  the  Government  is  certainly  going  to  adopt  a  policy  of 
that  kind,  and  it  is  perfectly  natural  for  him  to  say,  "1  know  what  I 
can  do  with  some  money  if  Congress  will  give  it  to  me,  and  if  money 
is  appropriated  I  will  take  it."  He  would  rather  have  $500  in  cash 
than  the  promise  of  somebody,  who  up  to  this  time  is  not  qualified 
to  speak,  that  ultimately  he  will  get  a  home. 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  is  not  $500  that  they  are  going  to  get  in  cash  under 
this  fourfold  plan:  it  proposes  to  string  it  out  over  a  period  of  three 
years;  maybe  he  gets  $100  now  and  $100  in  a  year  and  $100  in  three 
years. 

Mr.  RAKER.  So  that  I  will  not  be  misunderstood,  and  that  you 
will  get  me  clearly  on  the  record,  my  question  presupposes  and  is 
based  upon  the  assumption  that  we  will  provide  a  law  whereby  these 
men  will  know  in  advance,  as  far  as  human  ingenuity  can  work  it 
out,  that  we  will  provide  them  a  home  and  the  Government  stands 
behind  it.  I  am  assuming  that  all  the  time.  Don't  you  see  that  if 
we  first  get  that  law  on  the  statute  books  and  then  we~  both  stand  on 
that  provision  that  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to  get  homes  ?  Isn't  that 
right  ? 

Mr.  JONES.  Absolutely.  In  the  State  of  Oregon  the  American 
Legion  took  a  poll  based  on  the  State  bonus  act,  which  has  not  yet 
been  approved  by  the  people;  it  is  to  be  voted  on  next  Tuesday. 
That  bonus  act  allows  in  the  State  of  Oregon  an  ex-soldier  to  either 


136       DEVELOPMENT   OF   AGRICVLTUBE   IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 


take  $15  a  month  cash  bonus,  $15  for  each  month  in  the  service,  or  a 
loan  for  home  building  or  farms,  either  city  homes  or  farms,  not  to 
exceed  $3,000.  They  took  a  poll  through  the  American  Legion  to 
estimate  how  many  would  select  each  way  if  the  bill  was  passed — 
it  probably  will  be  passed  by  the  voters  on  Tuesday  next — they 
found  that  60  per  cent  would  take  the  loan  and  40  per  cent  would 
take  the  cash.  That  is  the  fairest  test  that  I  know  of  anywhere, 
because  there  the  men  knew  they  could  have  either  one;  they  could 
have  their  choice. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  is  a  fairer  test  than  80  per  cent  you  mentioned 
awhile  ago. 

Mr.  JONES.  Oh,  yes;  because  that  was  based  on  a  possibility  and 
this  was  based  on  a  very  definite  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  very  much  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Jones. 
The  committee  will  now  go  into  executive  session. 

(Whereupon,  at  11.55  o'clock  a.  m.,  the  committee  went  into 
executive  session.) 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


FEB02 


993 


Sc 
1 


